"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'.
Tuesday, 8 March 2016
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.
Saturday, 20 February 2016
Conversation and representation task
Transcribing my relevant contributions to the conversation
Callum: So Fin, do you or your parents have jobs?
...
Fin W: They are obviously both responsible people as they have to decide what happens to other peop-
Callum: Do you want to do that?
Fin W: No
Callum: Why not
...
Callum: Junior talk about your job in the co-op.
...
Fin W: Um-
Callum: So (.) just tell me, what does your job involve?
Fin W: Um (.) I work at a trampoline park sort of place-
Callum: Is that 'Jump'?
Fin W: No
Callum: The one in Cribbs Causeway?
...
Callum: Anyway (1) my parents (1) my (.) my mum is a social worker (.) who works (1) with people with learning difficulties (1) and (.) my dad is a service manager for an engineering company which does have a lot of responsibilities as he (.) in a way (.) takes care of the engineers
Relating to Tannen's difference model and that men are competitive in conversations, it seems I try to gain the authority by being the agenda setter, interrogating Fin, starting with a discourse marker, "So Fin, do you or your parents have jobs?" Although I believe myself to be a confident speaker, I wouldn't necessarily believe I would try to dominate and take authority in the conversation, despite the fact it may seem that way. Again relating to Tannen's theory that men are competitive, I interrupt Fin again with an interrogative which is unmitigated, without fillers or hedges, and straight to the point "Do you want to do that?" In reference to Brown and Levinson's politeness strategies, it could be argued that I use a bald, straight forward 'face', suggesting I was very confident in the conversation and possibly seemed as if I held the authority and didn't need to be overly polite, which was not the case. It could also be argued that, as the powerful participant, I was using constraints by asking a closed question to Fin to reduce his airtime.
Again relating to the bald face, I used an unmitigated imperative, again agenda setting, saying "Junior talk about your job in the co-op". Because we cannot see paralinguistics such as tone of voice and facial expression in the transcript, which I believe are a vital part of my communication, it seems I am being quite 'bossy' by using imperatives to demand someone else to talk, when actually my tone of voice could suggest I am actually being cooperative and trying to include people to talk.
Contrastingly to being cooperative, it could be argued that when in latched conversation with Fin, I am using a stereotypical male use of language by trying to be correct by questioning the speaker confidently; the fact that I also interrupted Fin also shows the confidence I had and, although there were no participants who were female, Zimmerman and West's theory of men interrupting frequently is shown in the transcript, as I interrupt quite frequently. However, it could be said that when interrupting, I am just trying to find out information and make the speaker expand on what they are saying, which I think was my intention.
When predominantly speaking, my air time was quite long and interrupted like a monologue, which could represent that the others did not feel confident or 'hold the power' to interrupt me; it may come across this way, but it is not the case. The pauses could also reflect on me trying to 'hog' the air time, or it may actually contrast from that and suggest me being nervous and not prepared of what to say.
Callum: So Fin, do you or your parents have jobs?
...
Fin W: They are obviously both responsible people as they have to decide what happens to other peop-
Callum: Do you want to do that?
Fin W: No
Callum: Why not
...
Callum: Junior talk about your job in the co-op.
...
Fin W: Um-
Callum: So (.) just tell me, what does your job involve?
Fin W: Um (.) I work at a trampoline park sort of place-
Callum: Is that 'Jump'?
Fin W: No
Callum: The one in Cribbs Causeway?
...
Callum: Anyway (1) my parents (1) my (.) my mum is a social worker (.) who works (1) with people with learning difficulties (1) and (.) my dad is a service manager for an engineering company which does have a lot of responsibilities as he (.) in a way (.) takes care of the engineers
Relating to Tannen's difference model and that men are competitive in conversations, it seems I try to gain the authority by being the agenda setter, interrogating Fin, starting with a discourse marker, "So Fin, do you or your parents have jobs?" Although I believe myself to be a confident speaker, I wouldn't necessarily believe I would try to dominate and take authority in the conversation, despite the fact it may seem that way. Again relating to Tannen's theory that men are competitive, I interrupt Fin again with an interrogative which is unmitigated, without fillers or hedges, and straight to the point "Do you want to do that?" In reference to Brown and Levinson's politeness strategies, it could be argued that I use a bald, straight forward 'face', suggesting I was very confident in the conversation and possibly seemed as if I held the authority and didn't need to be overly polite, which was not the case. It could also be argued that, as the powerful participant, I was using constraints by asking a closed question to Fin to reduce his airtime.
Again relating to the bald face, I used an unmitigated imperative, again agenda setting, saying "Junior talk about your job in the co-op". Because we cannot see paralinguistics such as tone of voice and facial expression in the transcript, which I believe are a vital part of my communication, it seems I am being quite 'bossy' by using imperatives to demand someone else to talk, when actually my tone of voice could suggest I am actually being cooperative and trying to include people to talk.
Contrastingly to being cooperative, it could be argued that when in latched conversation with Fin, I am using a stereotypical male use of language by trying to be correct by questioning the speaker confidently; the fact that I also interrupted Fin also shows the confidence I had and, although there were no participants who were female, Zimmerman and West's theory of men interrupting frequently is shown in the transcript, as I interrupt quite frequently. However, it could be said that when interrupting, I am just trying to find out information and make the speaker expand on what they are saying, which I think was my intention.
When predominantly speaking, my air time was quite long and interrupted like a monologue, which could represent that the others did not feel confident or 'hold the power' to interrupt me; it may come across this way, but it is not the case. The pauses could also reflect on me trying to 'hog' the air time, or it may actually contrast from that and suggest me being nervous and not prepared of what to say.
Sunday, 14 February 2016
Gender Representation holiday task
This advert relates to the negative connotations that surround women, that even the most stereotypical women’s job requires somewhat ‘manly’ traits, believing you need to be man enough to be a nurse, the job stereotypically labelled to women. This text also uses a somewhat reverse semantic derogation, as usually women receive bad connotations in the words relating to them, however here it seems that women are ‘strong enough’ to be a nurse; however, authoritative words such as ‘strong’ are usually linked to men, as Mary Beard said that men hold more authority than women due to some characteristics they have such as ‘deep-voiced’, therefore it is implying that nursing should in effect be a job for men.
This video
also uses semantic derogation but this time showing negative connotations
towards women, aiming for people to realise how often women are given negative
connotations compared to the powerful connotations men receive, aiming to try
and balance how equally genders are treated. For example, there are harsh
opposites that men and women receive relating to the same sort of incident,
such as washing; men are considered neat compared to the vain woman; when
people from the opposite sexes are presumably talking to persuade, the men are
persuasive, however the women are pushy; this semantic derogation links to
Lakoff’s theory that women’s language is deficient compared to men, as their
actions make them come across as ‘deficient’ compared to men, despite the fact
their actions are relatively similar.
This very
controversial advert links to John Grey’s book “Men are from Mars, Women are
from Venus” and the fact that one statement declared that women care more about
language than men, and are more verbally skilled, therefore the opposite
relating to men being more direct and straight forward with their language, and
mocking women for talking more frequently, saying it is in effect wrong. This again
links to Lakoff’s theory that men’s language is the norm, and females being
deficient as this advert believes that women sing more words than they should
be using is in fact deficient.Thursday, 4 February 2016
Language and representation task - Charity
Great Ormond Street Hospital - http://www.gosh.nhs.uk/about-us/who-we-are
The slogan of Great Ormond Street Hospital is 'The child first and always'. This declarative shows that all of their work and attention is involved in helping out the children as much as possible in any way possible, and states that they will help them before anything else and nothing else. Because of the severity of the children's conditions dealt with at the hospital, the carers of the children are assured from this as they will interpret the hospital will be doing everything in their power to make their experience as joyful as possible during the tough times.
Being an 'international centre of excellence in child healthcare' it would seem that the hospital is declaring it will offer top quality and world class treatment for the children, which is essentially their sole goal - to offer treatment to cure life-threatening illnesses.
It seems that its target audience of the webpage is adults, as although there is a hint of graphology which may be intended for children such as different colours to underline different pages of the website, it is mainly a plain, sophisticated site with relatively plain colours throughout and, more importantly, uses formal language which would seem directed at adults with an interest or knowledge in the lexical field of health and medication, for example "we form the UK’s only academic biomedical research centre specialising in paediatrics".
Throughout, they declare their intentions to do their very best in finding and giving treatment to the children, alongside giving the children a happy experience when at the hospital to do their best to make them forget about the conditions they are in, through adjectives like 'dedicated', having a 'mission' to provide the best treatment possible and having 3 main priorities of 'Safety, Effectiveness and Experience', showing they equally want everyone associated with the hospital to stay safe, give treatment that can potentially cure successfully and quickly, and give the children and parents a, somewhat, enjoyable experience.
The slogan of Great Ormond Street Hospital is 'The child first and always'. This declarative shows that all of their work and attention is involved in helping out the children as much as possible in any way possible, and states that they will help them before anything else and nothing else. Because of the severity of the children's conditions dealt with at the hospital, the carers of the children are assured from this as they will interpret the hospital will be doing everything in their power to make their experience as joyful as possible during the tough times.
Being an 'international centre of excellence in child healthcare' it would seem that the hospital is declaring it will offer top quality and world class treatment for the children, which is essentially their sole goal - to offer treatment to cure life-threatening illnesses.
It seems that its target audience of the webpage is adults, as although there is a hint of graphology which may be intended for children such as different colours to underline different pages of the website, it is mainly a plain, sophisticated site with relatively plain colours throughout and, more importantly, uses formal language which would seem directed at adults with an interest or knowledge in the lexical field of health and medication, for example "we form the UK’s only academic biomedical research centre specialising in paediatrics".
Throughout, they declare their intentions to do their very best in finding and giving treatment to the children, alongside giving the children a happy experience when at the hospital to do their best to make them forget about the conditions they are in, through adjectives like 'dedicated', having a 'mission' to provide the best treatment possible and having 3 main priorities of 'Safety, Effectiveness and Experience', showing they equally want everyone associated with the hospital to stay safe, give treatment that can potentially cure successfully and quickly, and give the children and parents a, somewhat, enjoyable experience.
Tuesday, 26 January 2016
Language and representation task
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)