Write an opinion article in which you discuss the idea that women should change their their language.
Audience: Guardian comment is free readers
How a woman can become more successful by changing her language
Women could become more powerful by dropping their defensive language traits
Self-deprecation and an apologetic style may be beneficial in everyday talk when establishing friendships and talking to friends, but using this language in business and high pressure meetings such as 'I am probably speaking out of turn but...' show weakness, uncertainty and a lack of authority - this is, according to studies, frequently used by women and can consequently limit their potential in high profile job roles. "Why is a man's potential not limited?" You may ask; the answer is simple - because they don't use this weak, defensive style of language!
The fact that some language theorists such as Deborah Cameron who believe men and women do not talk differently is simply ludicrous. Cameron, who invented the 'discursive model' [hyperlink to Deborah Cameron wikipedia page] believes that your gender doesn't influence your language, and that the belief that men and women talk differently is "one of the greatest myths of all time". Why is it? Men are direct, discourteous due to their competitive approach to conversations and aim to dominate conversations through holding centre stage and interrupting people, compared to women who are polite, respectful and care more about language. Reputable language theorist Deborah Tannen [hyperlink to tannen wikipedia page] described in her 'difference model' just how much men and women differ in their language use and what they aim for in conversations - men want 'status' compared to a woman needing 'support', and a man wanting 'competition' compared to a woman wanting 'co-operation' are just a few examples of the differences. This translates to make a huge difference in circumstances such as business meetings, where, explained by Tannen, men are competent in speaking in public situations where they are comfortable in taking centre stage in a 'report' style, and are not afraid to have competition with other people in hostile situations.
Conversely, women are more comfortable in speaking in private conversations where they aim to establish connections with other people where they aim for co-operation and support - this could be interpreted as women being weak seeing they need 'support' which could leave them vulnerable in situations such as boardroom meetings.
"Women who try and claim a public voice are treated like freakish androgynes". Explained by classical scholar Mary Beard, it seems it will be a long time until women are treated fairly when claiming a 'public voice' due to the harsh reality of how they are treated, many describe they are merely a 'mute in the public sphere'. This however may be because of a woman's language style, being uncertain, defensive and apologetic. This allows men to take advantage of what they love to do - take control of a conversation.
Robin Lakoff is a highly regarded language theorist, researching women's language use in the 1970's, creating the deficit model, believing that men's language is normal whereas women's language is deficient due to their frequent use of 'uncertainty features' such as back-channelling [hyperlink to dictionary page with backchannelling definition], being uncertain when describing things, eg 'sort of...' and 'kind of...', and the frequent use of declaring a thought and then needing to question their own thought such as "it's cold in here, isn't it?" known as a tag question. These uncertainty features are all very similar to using an apologetic style and self-deprecating which is also a part of a woman's language use which consequently makes them seem weak and defensive, an approach which certainly has no place in work, especially hostile business meetings for example. How men survive in high profile jobs is through their language style of trying to dominate conversations and speaking in a direct manner and consequently talking for twice as long as women due to their perceived superior status, and being able to take the lead in conversations and use techniques to shut down women in conversations known as 'constraints'. Research conducted by theorists Zimmerman and West [hyperlink to dominance model information page] show that in 11 conversations, men interrupt 46 times compared to women interrupting just twice, and men talk for twice as long. Because of a woman's uncertainty in their language, men frequently are forced to explain things to women which they may already know in a condescending manner known as 'mansplaining', a reason which may also be accountable for men needing to be a powerful participant and take the lead in conversations.
If women don't start to change their language and become less defensive and uncertain, people's beliefs and thoughts towards women, their language and competency to take control in challenging situations may never change.
Tuesday, 31 May 2016
Tuesday, 10 May 2016
Comparison work 10/05/2016
Text A - YouGov website
Because the editor of the YouGov website wants to make online readers feel engaged with the topics surrounding the website, the polite interrogative "what would you like to do?" This interrogative is directly linked to multiple hyperlinks underneath showing what the actual readers can do. This clever use of graphology using hyperlinks shows the affordances of the text as the reader is directly involved straight away through the poll available under the hyperlinked title 'take part'. The cloaked imperative acting as a rhetorical interrogative below 'Would you support or oppose Britain phasing out the use of the one penny coin?' Coupled with the use of direct address, this shows that, relating to Hudson's dimensions of mode, the text has quite a high level of degree of interactiveness due to how easy it is to be involved in a poll relating to one of the main headings. In addition to this, the reader, which the editor of the website believe the implied readers are internet users who have interest in governmental debates, can also take part by creating an account, showing the type of intervactiveness is to connect with others online.
Another hyperlinked heading adopts the title 'Discover our products and services'. This imperative starts with the discourse marker 'discover'. This transitive dynamic verb gives off an enthusiastic essence, making the reader believe that what they will be 'discovering' will be exciting. Using this is trying to keep the actual readers engaged with the website and potentially lead them onto other pages of the website. Similarly, the third hyperlinked heading starts with the discourse marker 'Latest'. This superlative has connotations of 'breaking news' which the editor hopes will hook the reader into exploring the website more through clicking on the hyperlink, showing the affordances of the text.
The short imperatives used at the bottom of the page 'take part, 'see results' and 'find solutions' remind the reader of what is available for them to do on the website; the editor of the YouGov website seems to use these in a last gasp attempt to keep readers on the website by, not just making them titles, but hyperlinking them as well, again showing the affordances of the website, using influential power. The typographical effects of the titles are very simple, using a clear font colour, size and font, relating to the degree of formality of the text which is formal due to the nature of relating to the government using standard English, but does try to suit the needs of all potential readers by involving multi modal effects such as polls and images.
Text B - BBC news report
The writer of the BBC news report aims to grip the reader to the article by informing them of a lot of information about the election, using frequent short declaratives, packed with information. This relates to what the audience are hoping to see in the report, which is expected to be information on the election, which is easy to understand and read. This is shown through each individual piece of information having its own paragraph with simple typographical effects used such as simple font types and colours.
Comparison
Because the BBC need to engage the reader on a fairly dry subject, they use concise declaratives packed full of information to grip the reader. Similarly, the YouGov website uses a similar stance by using short quotes of information which relates to governmental debates to make sure the readers may come back to the website again.
Because the editor of the YouGov website wants to make online readers feel engaged with the topics surrounding the website, the polite interrogative "what would you like to do?" This interrogative is directly linked to multiple hyperlinks underneath showing what the actual readers can do. This clever use of graphology using hyperlinks shows the affordances of the text as the reader is directly involved straight away through the poll available under the hyperlinked title 'take part'. The cloaked imperative acting as a rhetorical interrogative below 'Would you support or oppose Britain phasing out the use of the one penny coin?' Coupled with the use of direct address, this shows that, relating to Hudson's dimensions of mode, the text has quite a high level of degree of interactiveness due to how easy it is to be involved in a poll relating to one of the main headings. In addition to this, the reader, which the editor of the website believe the implied readers are internet users who have interest in governmental debates, can also take part by creating an account, showing the type of intervactiveness is to connect with others online.
Another hyperlinked heading adopts the title 'Discover our products and services'. This imperative starts with the discourse marker 'discover'. This transitive dynamic verb gives off an enthusiastic essence, making the reader believe that what they will be 'discovering' will be exciting. Using this is trying to keep the actual readers engaged with the website and potentially lead them onto other pages of the website. Similarly, the third hyperlinked heading starts with the discourse marker 'Latest'. This superlative has connotations of 'breaking news' which the editor hopes will hook the reader into exploring the website more through clicking on the hyperlink, showing the affordances of the text.
The short imperatives used at the bottom of the page 'take part, 'see results' and 'find solutions' remind the reader of what is available for them to do on the website; the editor of the YouGov website seems to use these in a last gasp attempt to keep readers on the website by, not just making them titles, but hyperlinking them as well, again showing the affordances of the website, using influential power. The typographical effects of the titles are very simple, using a clear font colour, size and font, relating to the degree of formality of the text which is formal due to the nature of relating to the government using standard English, but does try to suit the needs of all potential readers by involving multi modal effects such as polls and images.
Text B - BBC news report
The writer of the BBC news report aims to grip the reader to the article by informing them of a lot of information about the election, using frequent short declaratives, packed with information. This relates to what the audience are hoping to see in the report, which is expected to be information on the election, which is easy to understand and read. This is shown through each individual piece of information having its own paragraph with simple typographical effects used such as simple font types and colours.
Comparison
Because the BBC need to engage the reader on a fairly dry subject, they use concise declaratives packed full of information to grip the reader. Similarly, the YouGov website uses a similar stance by using short quotes of information which relates to governmental debates to make sure the readers may come back to the website again.
Friday, 6 May 2016
Occupation article
Write an opinionated article about the use of work language in other contexts.
Audience - Guardian Comment is free readers.
Why our work should stay in the office
With our work troubles already hounding us enough, coming home to criticize and moan about our jobs, it seems that the language we use at work is also following us wherever we go, which, by all means, is not good.
When out and about, relaxing, work should be the last thing on people's minds and especially what comes out of their mouths. Despite this, I constantly hear people, unfortunately myself included, using jargon that can be understood, but should by all means be kept in the workplace. This exclusive lexis should be kept for people in our discourse communities like work colleagues who understand what is being said and why. According to theorist Goffman, your 'face needs', what people think about you due to how you come across in conversation, may be flouted and threatened due to people not knowing what you are going on about, or generally think you are trying to seem like a 'know it all', using specialist language that really doesn't suit the conversation - be it intentional or not. In addition to this, people may feel they are being overpowered in a conversation, due to such specialist terms being used that they are unable to contribute to a conversation, causing an unequal encounter.
In contrast to the thought that people believe that learning from work related language can help broaden your knowledge, it is clearly not the same for many aspects of work - should nurses or social workers be confusing young children with language of such complexity? Or teachers at home using their instrumental power on their children (who may be already tired of school talk) the same as they would in a classroom? It clearly wouldn't benefit anyone.
Audience - Guardian Comment is free readers.
Why our work should stay in the office
With our work troubles already hounding us enough, coming home to criticize and moan about our jobs, it seems that the language we use at work is also following us wherever we go, which, by all means, is not good.
When out and about, relaxing, work should be the last thing on people's minds and especially what comes out of their mouths. Despite this, I constantly hear people, unfortunately myself included, using jargon that can be understood, but should by all means be kept in the workplace. This exclusive lexis should be kept for people in our discourse communities like work colleagues who understand what is being said and why. According to theorist Goffman, your 'face needs', what people think about you due to how you come across in conversation, may be flouted and threatened due to people not knowing what you are going on about, or generally think you are trying to seem like a 'know it all', using specialist language that really doesn't suit the conversation - be it intentional or not. In addition to this, people may feel they are being overpowered in a conversation, due to such specialist terms being used that they are unable to contribute to a conversation, causing an unequal encounter.
In contrast to the thought that people believe that learning from work related language can help broaden your knowledge, it is clearly not the same for many aspects of work - should nurses or social workers be confusing young children with language of such complexity? Or teachers at home using their instrumental power on their children (who may be already tired of school talk) the same as they would in a classroom? It clearly wouldn't benefit anyone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)