Adele - Someone like you
I heard that you're settled down
That you found a girl and you're married now.
I heard that your dreams came true.
Guess she gave you things I didn't give to you.
...
I hate to turn up out of the blue uninvited
But I couldn't stay away, I couldn't fight it.
I had hoped you'd see my face and that you'd be reminded
That for me it isn't over.
Never mind, I'll find someone like you
I wish nothing but the best for you too
Don't forget me, I beg
I'll remember you said,
"Sometimes it lasts in love but sometimes it hurts instead,
Sometimes it lasts in love but sometimes it hurts instead"
These lyrics present the picture that the text producer is deeply saddened that her ex partner has left her and consequently 'settled down' in a relationship and married. Straight away, it seems as though the text producer is resentful of his new wife, "Guess she gave you things I didn't give to you". This leaves questions in the minds of the implied reader (her ex partner) and the actual reader, as it is not made clear what she 'didn't give'. She also goes on to seem as if she is plotting some sort of revenge, further emphasising her appeared bitterness, 'for me it isn't over'. Although it seems that she is hoping her ex partner (the idealised reader) sees this and feels guilty, the lyrics 'I wish nothing but the best for you' show that she isn't actually 'angry' at all; it seems that the text producer is (in a way) content and civil. This links to the phrase 'don't forget me, I beg' showing that the implied reader meant a lot to her, and the readers can then understand that, in the subtext, 'for me it isn't over' means that she will remember him for a long time. 'I hate to turn up out of the blue...I couldn't stay away, I couldn't fight it' suggests that although she knows the love between the text producer and implied reader is unrequited, she may have returned to where the pair used to live to see how he was coping or still cared about her; 'I couldn't stay away, I couldn't fight it' suggests that she still loves him but, against what was metaphorically fighting her, she couldn't resist returning.
Bruno Mars - Grenade
Easy come, easy go
That's just how you live, oh
Take, take, take it all
But you never give...
Gave you all I had
And you tossed it in the trash
You tossed it in the trash, you did
To give me all your love is all I ever asked
'Cause what you don't understand is...
I'd catch a grenade for you
Throw my hand on a blade for you
I'd jump in front of a train for you
You know I'd do anything for you
Oh, I would go through all this pain
Take a bullet straight through my brain
Yes, I would die for you, baby
But you won't do the same...
If my body was on fire
Oh, you'd watch me burn down in flames
You said you loved me, you're a liar
'Cause you never, ever, ever did, baby
Alike Adele's lyrics, some lyrics in this song devote the text producer's love for the implied reader and seemingly ex partner, with multiple declaratives using extreme hyperbole, 'I'd catch a grenade for you', 'I'd jump in front of a train for you' etc. These incredibly exaggerated statements show how much the implied reader meant to the text producer, but could possibly seem as if the narrator is trying to make the person feel guilty, showing just how much this person cared compared to the implied reader, as the lyrics state that she is selfish, "take take take it all but you never give" and doesn't care about the text producer, showing levels of love for each other are at the extreme opposite ends of the 'love' spectrum, sparking the narrator to make these comments, "I gave you all I had and you tossed it in the trash". This figurative language brings out the emotions of anger and resent of the text producer, quite the opposite of Adele's lyrics of content and civility.
Tuesday, 26 January 2016
Monday, 25 January 2016
Gender Research
Deborah Cameron - Discursive Model
One of the more recent theories relating to Gender is Cameron's discursive model; she believes that men and women do not use language differently, and that belief is one of the 'greatest myths of all time'. One of her famous quotes is that 'your genes don't determine your jeans'; by this, she believes that we 'do' gender, meaning we change our language based on the situation we are in. Men use female connotations when, for example, talking to a baby, and women are believed to use men's usual language when, for example, talking in a role of a manager or high in the hierarchy of the workforce.
O'Barr and Atkins
This pair of theorists believe that gender does not influence the way people speak, it is more the situation you are in, and relates to the power held in a conversation. Their evidence comes from 30 months of research in courtroom cases; in particular, a numerous amount of men and women were extensively studied, and neither of them spoke characteristically like their respected sexes, showing that there is no real connection between gender and language.
Opposing to Lakoff's deficit theory , they believe that after studying a wide range of women's language, there wasn't a substantial use of Lakoff's ideas of women using stereotypical women's language traits such as hyper-correct grammar and intensifiers.
Pamela Fishman against the Deficit theory
Fishman's book 'Work Women Do' reveals her belief that conversations between different sexes fail; this is not however because of women's 'abnormal or deficient' language, but because men have ways of responding unbeknown to women. She also explains that Lakoff's belief that 'women asking questions shows insecurity' is wrong, rather it shows an attribute of interactions, showing power.
Geoffrie Beattie's evidence that challenges Zimmerman and Wests'
Compared to Zimmerman and West having 55 experiences of interruptions occurring between an unrepresentative, small sample size, Beattie has evidence of 10 hours of tutorial discussions, totalling 557 interruptions where the frequency difference between men and women interrupting was just 0.3% (men - 34.1%, women - 33.8%) along with the fact that this is a much larger sample size, the difference in frequency is not enough to make the judgment that men interrupt significantly more than women.
John Grey - Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus
John Grey's book relays the point that men and women try to diverge with each-other when communicating, and overall claims that:
Language and communication matters more to women than it does to men;
Women talk more than men (opposing the Zimmerman and West theory) and overall have better verbal skills than men;
Men aim to 'get things completed' when using language, compared to women wanting to make connections with people;
Men's language is of a competitive nature, whereas women's consists of wanting to cooperate with people.
Grey believes that all of these factors lead to a miscommunication between men and women, linking to Fishman's idea that conversations between the sexes fail.
Mary Beard
Mary Beard believes that vocal women are not treated the same as vocal men, claiming the females are treated completely wrong; she believes that men are allowed to appear vocal because they come across as a 'deep voiced man with connotations of profoundity' compared to females voices not being linked in any way to authority.
One of the more recent theories relating to Gender is Cameron's discursive model; she believes that men and women do not use language differently, and that belief is one of the 'greatest myths of all time'. One of her famous quotes is that 'your genes don't determine your jeans'; by this, she believes that we 'do' gender, meaning we change our language based on the situation we are in. Men use female connotations when, for example, talking to a baby, and women are believed to use men's usual language when, for example, talking in a role of a manager or high in the hierarchy of the workforce.
O'Barr and Atkins
This pair of theorists believe that gender does not influence the way people speak, it is more the situation you are in, and relates to the power held in a conversation. Their evidence comes from 30 months of research in courtroom cases; in particular, a numerous amount of men and women were extensively studied, and neither of them spoke characteristically like their respected sexes, showing that there is no real connection between gender and language.
Opposing to Lakoff's deficit theory , they believe that after studying a wide range of women's language, there wasn't a substantial use of Lakoff's ideas of women using stereotypical women's language traits such as hyper-correct grammar and intensifiers.
Pamela Fishman against the Deficit theory
Fishman's book 'Work Women Do' reveals her belief that conversations between different sexes fail; this is not however because of women's 'abnormal or deficient' language, but because men have ways of responding unbeknown to women. She also explains that Lakoff's belief that 'women asking questions shows insecurity' is wrong, rather it shows an attribute of interactions, showing power.
Geoffrie Beattie's evidence that challenges Zimmerman and Wests'
Compared to Zimmerman and West having 55 experiences of interruptions occurring between an unrepresentative, small sample size, Beattie has evidence of 10 hours of tutorial discussions, totalling 557 interruptions where the frequency difference between men and women interrupting was just 0.3% (men - 34.1%, women - 33.8%) along with the fact that this is a much larger sample size, the difference in frequency is not enough to make the judgment that men interrupt significantly more than women.
John Grey - Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus
John Grey's book relays the point that men and women try to diverge with each-other when communicating, and overall claims that:
Language and communication matters more to women than it does to men;
Women talk more than men (opposing the Zimmerman and West theory) and overall have better verbal skills than men;
Men aim to 'get things completed' when using language, compared to women wanting to make connections with people;
Men's language is of a competitive nature, whereas women's consists of wanting to cooperate with people.
Grey believes that all of these factors lead to a miscommunication between men and women, linking to Fishman's idea that conversations between the sexes fail.
Mary Beard
Mary Beard believes that vocal women are not treated the same as vocal men, claiming the females are treated completely wrong; she believes that men are allowed to appear vocal because they come across as a 'deep voiced man with connotations of profoundity' compared to females voices not being linked in any way to authority.
Monday, 14 December 2015
Daily Mail article - attitudes to accents - Tuesday 15th
My intended target audience will be 'The Daily Mail' readers who are interested in changing accents and dialects, and people who have prescriptive and descriptive views on the subject.
Is Received Pronunciation the only respectable accent?
For decades, controversy has filled the topic of conversation on regional dialects and accents defining who we are and our intelligence, with the country torn between believing that they are a part of our unique identity and a rich factor in our social and regional upbringing, adding a so called 'spice' or 'flavour' to the way our country's mode of talk operates, whereas many believe quite the opposite that strong regional accents have an undesired effect on the way we speak and effectively dampens the quality and eloquence of Received Pronunciation. However, in the scheme of things our country would seem pretty boring and dull if we all spoke in the same accent and dialect, don't you think?
Giles' matched guise technique found that Received Pronunciation is the most impressive and influential accent when imposing certain arguments, and that the brummie accent was the least desirable and imposing; however these arguments coming from a variety of accents and regional dialects were all the same, showing that, with the same concept of speech being heard from different accents, people still judge them differently on how convincing and appealing they are. Although the study was 40 years ago, the image to your right still shows results of brummie being the least favourable accents; showing that stereotypical judgment is still occurring today, and presumably in everyday life. Along with this, we frequently hear people saying that people cannot present on national television because of their accent being 'too strong' or 'not neutral enough'; is this the harsh truth, or are people actually discriminating?
Throughout the world and especially in our country, people are constantly trying, possibly when they move homes or cities or during university, to get along with people, many a time in which people from different regions of our land using different dialects and strong opposite accents occur - when this happens, do we have to hide our true prescriptive thoughts of other 'snotty' accents, or shall we actually enjoy experiencing other fascinating accents and become descriptive people? Shall we judge or explore? This can occur from a wide scale of accents deemed acceptable or unacceptable; so called posh people may make judgements on a strong regional accent like scouse, and then a scouse may judge a more standard pronunciation accent. Will our country ever truly get along, or will we just act as if we do?
If received pronunciation is considered to be the 'correct' accent to talk with, then why is it that only 2% of the population of England speak that way. That statistic along with many others show the wide cultural diversity our country has, we should be embracing it, not being hypocritical about it and make judgements on people purely because of their accent.
Studies show that over a few decades, 'the forms and norms of received pronunciation inevitably drift, it is influenced by the Southern British Speech Community', and this quote is backed up by analysts stating that the Queen has over the years been slowly trying to converge with the people, as her received pronunciation 'levels' have gradually dropped; so, this shows that RP may not be the wanted accent after all!
Is Received Pronunciation the only respectable accent?
 |
| Map of Great Britain and Ireland showing results of a survey of most favoured accents |
Giles' matched guise technique found that Received Pronunciation is the most impressive and influential accent when imposing certain arguments, and that the brummie accent was the least desirable and imposing; however these arguments coming from a variety of accents and regional dialects were all the same, showing that, with the same concept of speech being heard from different accents, people still judge them differently on how convincing and appealing they are. Although the study was 40 years ago, the image to your right still shows results of brummie being the least favourable accents; showing that stereotypical judgment is still occurring today, and presumably in everyday life. Along with this, we frequently hear people saying that people cannot present on national television because of their accent being 'too strong' or 'not neutral enough'; is this the harsh truth, or are people actually discriminating?
Throughout the world and especially in our country, people are constantly trying, possibly when they move homes or cities or during university, to get along with people, many a time in which people from different regions of our land using different dialects and strong opposite accents occur - when this happens, do we have to hide our true prescriptive thoughts of other 'snotty' accents, or shall we actually enjoy experiencing other fascinating accents and become descriptive people? Shall we judge or explore? This can occur from a wide scale of accents deemed acceptable or unacceptable; so called posh people may make judgements on a strong regional accent like scouse, and then a scouse may judge a more standard pronunciation accent. Will our country ever truly get along, or will we just act as if we do?
If received pronunciation is considered to be the 'correct' accent to talk with, then why is it that only 2% of the population of England speak that way. That statistic along with many others show the wide cultural diversity our country has, we should be embracing it, not being hypocritical about it and make judgements on people purely because of their accent.
Studies show that over a few decades, 'the forms and norms of received pronunciation inevitably drift, it is influenced by the Southern British Speech Community', and this quote is backed up by analysts stating that the Queen has over the years been slowly trying to converge with the people, as her received pronunciation 'levels' have gradually dropped; so, this shows that RP may not be the wanted accent after all!
Friday, 11 December 2015
Accents and dialects findings from a class survey
Very Fairly Neither nor Not very Not at all
Received Pronunciation
Friendly 0 3 3 6 1
Intelligent 10 4 0 0 0
Trustworthy 1 6 6 1 0
Brummie
Friendly 0 8 4 2 0
Intelligent 0 0 2 9 3
Trustworthy 0 4 7 2 1
Scouse
Friendly 0 7 4 1 0
Intelligent 1 4 5 4 0
Trustworthy 1 6 4 2 1
Resulting from our class findings, received pronunciation was deemed, by a considerable margin, the most intellectual sounding accent, with all 14 class members in favour of it sounding intelligent; this is a huge contrast compared to brummie, with not one student thinking it sounded intelligent - 9 thought it sounded unintelligent. The scouse accent seemed fairly neutral when asked about if it sounded intelligent; from these findings, a correlation may be made from how strong the accents are and less alike to RP, the more unintelligent it sounds.
The roles seem to reverse when consulted about the accents friendliness; nearly half the class deemed RP sounding unfriendly, compared to 8 people finding the brummie accent friendly, and 7 people finding the scouse accent of the same degree of friendliness. This could lead to a stereotype that people make - the more friendly a person/accent sounds, the less intelligent they are, and vice versa.
A slight anomalie is found in the scouse data, with just 1 person deeming it unfriendly; however, this could be because the person who casted that vote was originally from Liverpool, and therefore may have used inside information as they know what people from Liverpool are actually like.
This information links to Giles' matched guise technique around 40 years ago, where his investigation resulted in similar findings; students listened to different accents and judged which sounded the most convincing when expressing arguments. RP was deemed the most commanding, with brummie the least convincing, showing that the same judging and feelings about accents still occur in our modern era.
Received Pronunciation
Friendly 0 3 3 6 1
Intelligent 10 4 0 0 0
Trustworthy 1 6 6 1 0
Brummie
Friendly 0 8 4 2 0
Intelligent 0 0 2 9 3
Trustworthy 0 4 7 2 1
Scouse
Friendly 0 7 4 1 0
Intelligent 1 4 5 4 0
Trustworthy 1 6 4 2 1
Resulting from our class findings, received pronunciation was deemed, by a considerable margin, the most intellectual sounding accent, with all 14 class members in favour of it sounding intelligent; this is a huge contrast compared to brummie, with not one student thinking it sounded intelligent - 9 thought it sounded unintelligent. The scouse accent seemed fairly neutral when asked about if it sounded intelligent; from these findings, a correlation may be made from how strong the accents are and less alike to RP, the more unintelligent it sounds.
The roles seem to reverse when consulted about the accents friendliness; nearly half the class deemed RP sounding unfriendly, compared to 8 people finding the brummie accent friendly, and 7 people finding the scouse accent of the same degree of friendliness. This could lead to a stereotype that people make - the more friendly a person/accent sounds, the less intelligent they are, and vice versa.
A slight anomalie is found in the scouse data, with just 1 person deeming it unfriendly; however, this could be because the person who casted that vote was originally from Liverpool, and therefore may have used inside information as they know what people from Liverpool are actually like.
This information links to Giles' matched guise technique around 40 years ago, where his investigation resulted in similar findings; students listened to different accents and judged which sounded the most convincing when expressing arguments. RP was deemed the most commanding, with brummie the least convincing, showing that the same judging and feelings about accents still occur in our modern era.
Thursday, 3 December 2015
Giles' matched guise technique research
Giles matched guise technique
The matched guise test is a sociolinguistic experimental technique used to determine the views and feelings of people towards a certain dialect or accent.
The experiment revolves around a
procedure of a variety of different students, acting as ‘judges’, listening to what
they believe are different people’s accents and dialects (social and regional),
and then evaluating their personal qualities solely based on their voice.
However, they do not know that the ‘different people’ is just a single person speaking in the different accents heard. The test was executed by the listeners not able to see the speaker, therefore allowing them not to know it was the same person. This focuses on the findings that the judges solely judge the person by their accent, as the way of speaking and everything else is the same bar the accent. The topic talked about in the different accents were arguments against capital punishment – the arguments were completely identical; this allowed Giles to understand how persuasive the listeners found the speakers, despite the fact each argument was identical.
Findings
The students listening concluded that Received
Pronunciation was the most impressive and influential, and the Brummie accent
was the least imposing and convincing.
The information found from this
technique closely matches similar research done in recent times; in 2014 a survey found that the Brummie accent was the least attractive, showing similar results are found over 40 years on.
Limitations
The judges may eventually understand
midway through the recording that the ‘different speakers’ are only in fact the
single person. This may lead to their results being untrue and therefore
unreliable.
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".
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".
Saturday, 14 November 2015
Accent and dialect article
Are dialects changing?
Incredibly, the United Kingdom has so many different accents and dialects although the area of the UK is so small compared to other countries where you wouldn't quite be able to distinguish different accents and dialects. With people roaming the country when a new job approaches or going to university, many people are constantly leaving their original area of living and encountering new places - so do their accents, along with their dialect which they use unconsciously, and suddenly people have a strong idea of where you originate from. This is an effect of geographical dialect, whereas social dialect wouldn't have as much as an effect due to the fact that no matter where you come from, your social dialect is due to your class and how you were brought up, for instance a man from Glasgow and a woman from Devon may have similar social dialects, but their geographical dialect and their accents will be clearly and hugely different from each others.
With people constantly moving nationally and internationally, people are hearing different dialects from different regions and countries, and this can then influence people to start to use the dialect they come across, passing onto friends and family and that's it - the simple process of dialects being passed on to other regions. Understanding these different dialects allow geographically and culturally diverse people gain an understanding of one another, and can possibly create a fusion between multiple dialects, hence the fact that dialects are changing. Feeling that you fit in is essential in this modern era, and using different dialectal colloquial language helps people to have that feeling. The Geordie accent and dialect is popular, and this liking is influenced by aspects such as social media and television, with popular show Geordie Shore and tv presenting pair Ant and Dec in the forefront of this as both of these examples are tv regulars of popular shows. Due to their popularity (and popularity and status being required in our era) people decide to use their dialect to feel on the same level of credibility as they have.
However, there is the argument that dialects are not changing as fast as many researchers say, as people have an idiolect, created by their upbringing and dialect from their area they have grew up in, and want to keep that with them for the rest of their lives as a tool to show they are unique, and have not used any other dialects they have came in contact with in their lifetimes.
Incredibly, the United Kingdom has so many different accents and dialects although the area of the UK is so small compared to other countries where you wouldn't quite be able to distinguish different accents and dialects. With people roaming the country when a new job approaches or going to university, many people are constantly leaving their original area of living and encountering new places - so do their accents, along with their dialect which they use unconsciously, and suddenly people have a strong idea of where you originate from. This is an effect of geographical dialect, whereas social dialect wouldn't have as much as an effect due to the fact that no matter where you come from, your social dialect is due to your class and how you were brought up, for instance a man from Glasgow and a woman from Devon may have similar social dialects, but their geographical dialect and their accents will be clearly and hugely different from each others.
With people constantly moving nationally and internationally, people are hearing different dialects from different regions and countries, and this can then influence people to start to use the dialect they come across, passing onto friends and family and that's it - the simple process of dialects being passed on to other regions. Understanding these different dialects allow geographically and culturally diverse people gain an understanding of one another, and can possibly create a fusion between multiple dialects, hence the fact that dialects are changing. Feeling that you fit in is essential in this modern era, and using different dialectal colloquial language helps people to have that feeling. The Geordie accent and dialect is popular, and this liking is influenced by aspects such as social media and television, with popular show Geordie Shore and tv presenting pair Ant and Dec in the forefront of this as both of these examples are tv regulars of popular shows. Due to their popularity (and popularity and status being required in our era) people decide to use their dialect to feel on the same level of credibility as they have.
However, there is the argument that dialects are not changing as fast as many researchers say, as people have an idiolect, created by their upbringing and dialect from their area they have grew up in, and want to keep that with them for the rest of their lives as a tool to show they are unique, and have not used any other dialects they have came in contact with in their lifetimes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)