Audience - regular guardian readers who are interested in the general language topic, surrounding accents, dialects and other issues.
Are we afraid of our own accent?
In light of the recent interview between Russell Brand and Ed Miliband where the latter seemed to be refining his accent to possibly 'connect' with his potential voters, is it true that we are afraid of our own accent, and need to regularly chop and change it to be liked and gain popularity?
Conformity is a regular occurrence in the social sphere - people change their beliefs and behaviours to be 'in' with the crowd and be liked, to gain popularity, to fit in. However, this is very similar to what is starting to occur with our accents; people are using 'covert prestige', a similar concept of changing their accents and dialects to fit in and avoid being judged (perhaps), but should people need to be converging their accents to suit the people they are with - can't we be happy and unafraid of being judged of our own voice?
This seems to be the case with Ed Miliband in his interview with Russell Brand, who slightly altered his original accent of Received Pronunciation using a slightly informal tone - 'yes' became 'yeah', glottal stops were used, and features were used such as elision shown through 'going to' becoming 'gonna' to potentially impress voters and converge with the people who will be voting in the general election. This just shows that even famous politicians are at threat of being pressured to change their accent to 'fit in', but why is this happening? According to language theorist Howard Giles' accommodation theory, Ed Miliband may have changed his accent to 'accommodate' the person he was talking to, in this case the strong Cockney Russell Brand, where he used a style of 'downward convergence'- a tool where general RP users tone down their accent when speaking to a person of lower class. Another example of this is the Queen who has been analysed to have toned down her strong RP to converge with the people, showing that even the most prestigious of people have, over time become uncomfortable in their own voice and have resorted to slight changes in their accent!
The opposite of downward convergence also exists, stated by Giles' accommodation theory, known as 'upward convergence', which is a more common occurrence where working class people eliminate strong regional features of accent and dialect when speaking to people of a higher class or users of RP; one example of this is covert prestige, where people use RP or standard English dialect to fit in with the crowd and to be accepted. However, why should this be the case - is it people feeling generally concerned about their accents, or has it come from persistent judging from prescriptivists who are overly obsessed with correct and 'acceptable' language use? A study done by William Labov named '4th floor study' shown that middle class workers in a prestigious retail store in New York used overt prestige when asked a question in which the sound of a 'rhotic R' would be used to prononce the word 4th, which is classed as an upper class style of language to use in the area. After being asked twice, the middle class workers, compared to upper class staff, had a much higher upward shift of the pronunciation of the rhotic R, maybe in response to not using it enough the first time, therefore being afraid of not sounding prestigious enough, but why is this? Can't we be comfortable with our own voice, a sign and reminder of our upbringing and where we come from?
Many language theorists suggest that, with people constantly moving up and down the country due to work and university, accents are becoming weaker due to 'dialect levelling', where people pick up regular occurrences of the accent where they are living and consequently drop parts of their own accent, but is this because of the reason generally thought of, or is it because people are not comfortable with their own accent and therefore want to feel respected and fit in by using features of the dialect where they are living - using covert prestige? Are students who go to university trying to gain a discourse community with fellow students, to share a lexical understanding, or are they changing because of being afraid of judgement, uncomfortable with their own dialect and voice? Whatever the reason, it is clear to see that prescriptive attitudes towards accents and dialects have caused people to change them to be respected and to fit into the social sphere.
Thursday, 14 April 2016
Gender Speech
Audience - youth parliament hoping to make an impact in relation to gender equality issues.
Title - Will women ever be able to claim a public voice?
Why, in this modern era, are women still frowned upon when speaking in public, trying to 'claim' a public voice? Why has it got to a stage where they have to fight to even 'claim' a public voice? It shouldn't be this way, and if it continues can greatly affect our future in terms of parliament elections - why did our only female prime minister Margaret Thatcher need lessons on talking more like a man? Even she was affected by the opinion that women do not hold the power to establish authority in the public sphere!
Famous scholar Mary Beard once stated that women who try to 'claim' a public voice are treated badly, like 'freakish androgynes'! Can you let this continue? One factor contributing towards this is that women are not valued as highly as men when trying to establish authority because men are 'deep-voiced' with 'connotations of profoundity' causing women to be a 'mute in the public sphere' - all because of the sound of a voice! Why should that matter? Surely what comes out of someone's mouth is more important don't you think? This can lead to women being afraid to speak out in the future, and therefore things may never change - all because of the sound of their voice not being as 'deep-voiced' as men's, therefore without having connotations of authority and profoundity. Are you going to let this continue?
This problem leads to men dominating conversations due to their 'perceived superior status', opinionated by theorists Zimmerman and West; they also state that men generally talk for twice as long as women, holding the authority in a 'report style' explained by Deborah Tannen, where men hold centre stage in a conversation by talking in an anecdote style, showing they realise the power they have and therefore use that to totally block out women in a conversation, using constraints in the process causing unequal encounters where women may be 'shouted down'- this shouldn't be the case. In addition to this, men interrupt women over twice as much as women do so to men. Consequently, women may be nervous when in a position of talking in a conversation with men, as they know that men associate a conversation with a 'competition' explained by Tannen, and therefore maybe quick to shut them down, causing the women to use fillers and non fluency features such as stuttering.
This shows that women when in the company of men may never be able to express their thoughts in a manner they would like, and may then therefore never be able to 'claim' that public voice as they will never gain recognition of being confident when speaking in public. This is shown by Tannen stating that women prefer to speak in private in a rapport style, establishing connections, rather than in a competitive style like men do, as they may feel intimidated by men when speaking such as on the public stage - but why should they feel intimidated?
This could all change if men and women actually understood each other in conversation - in John Grey's book 'Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus' he states that there is a strong miscommunication between men and women, linking to Pamela Fishman's idea that communication regularly fails between men and women; women care more about language than men do, and therefore may be the reason for pauses and non-fluency features, to make sure what they say is correct and comprehensible! Maybe, if a step was made for the sexes to understand each others speech, then it may be the start of a long road to women feeling comfortable when 'claiming' a public voice, and men not to frown upon them in doing so.
Title - Will women ever be able to claim a public voice?
Why, in this modern era, are women still frowned upon when speaking in public, trying to 'claim' a public voice? Why has it got to a stage where they have to fight to even 'claim' a public voice? It shouldn't be this way, and if it continues can greatly affect our future in terms of parliament elections - why did our only female prime minister Margaret Thatcher need lessons on talking more like a man? Even she was affected by the opinion that women do not hold the power to establish authority in the public sphere!
Famous scholar Mary Beard once stated that women who try to 'claim' a public voice are treated badly, like 'freakish androgynes'! Can you let this continue? One factor contributing towards this is that women are not valued as highly as men when trying to establish authority because men are 'deep-voiced' with 'connotations of profoundity' causing women to be a 'mute in the public sphere' - all because of the sound of a voice! Why should that matter? Surely what comes out of someone's mouth is more important don't you think? This can lead to women being afraid to speak out in the future, and therefore things may never change - all because of the sound of their voice not being as 'deep-voiced' as men's, therefore without having connotations of authority and profoundity. Are you going to let this continue?
This problem leads to men dominating conversations due to their 'perceived superior status', opinionated by theorists Zimmerman and West; they also state that men generally talk for twice as long as women, holding the authority in a 'report style' explained by Deborah Tannen, where men hold centre stage in a conversation by talking in an anecdote style, showing they realise the power they have and therefore use that to totally block out women in a conversation, using constraints in the process causing unequal encounters where women may be 'shouted down'- this shouldn't be the case. In addition to this, men interrupt women over twice as much as women do so to men. Consequently, women may be nervous when in a position of talking in a conversation with men, as they know that men associate a conversation with a 'competition' explained by Tannen, and therefore maybe quick to shut them down, causing the women to use fillers and non fluency features such as stuttering.
This shows that women when in the company of men may never be able to express their thoughts in a manner they would like, and may then therefore never be able to 'claim' that public voice as they will never gain recognition of being confident when speaking in public. This is shown by Tannen stating that women prefer to speak in private in a rapport style, establishing connections, rather than in a competitive style like men do, as they may feel intimidated by men when speaking such as on the public stage - but why should they feel intimidated?
This could all change if men and women actually understood each other in conversation - in John Grey's book 'Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus' he states that there is a strong miscommunication between men and women, linking to Pamela Fishman's idea that communication regularly fails between men and women; women care more about language than men do, and therefore may be the reason for pauses and non-fluency features, to make sure what they say is correct and comprehensible! Maybe, if a step was made for the sexes to understand each others speech, then it may be the start of a long road to women feeling comfortable when 'claiming' a public voice, and men not to frown upon them in doing so.
Monday, 11 April 2016
How our language is changing due to gender issues
Audience - Guardian readers with interest in the English language.
Why is our language changing due to gender issues?
Despite believing we are a gender friendly community, equal to all, only recently has our language been changing due to issues regarding gender. Why were there issues in the first place? To what extent are these issues changing our language? you may ask...
According to many language theorists, it may actually be our views on language that is changing - not the language itself. Renowned gender theorist Robin Lakoff claimed that female language is 'deficient' compared to men's due to certain language features women use which supposedly show uncertainty and a weakness in language such as 'tag questions', added onto the ends of sentences to gain an understanding with the receiver such as "isn't it?" You know? In response to Lakoff believing women are 'deficient', Pamela Fishman claims that actually these uncertainty features women use are signs of showing power in the conversation without actually dominating it, dictating who speaks, co-operating with other members of the conversation. This adds a different perspective on the whole issue of gender equality in language, along with the straightforward approach Deborah Cameron has in insisting that men and women do not talk differently, therefore discounting the fact there are gender issues in language, as people 'do gender' - a way of talking in a way that suits your audience and situation.
Scholar Mary Beard once claimed that women who claim a public voice get treated badly - like 'freakish androgynes' - and are not valued as highly as men when seemingly trying to establish authority, declaring that women are a 'mute' in the public sphere. In addition to this, she later claimed that men are 'deep-voiced with connotations of profoundity', something that females are stereotypically not associated with, meaning men generally dominate conversations using their 'rapport' style according to Deborah Tannen, a way in which men hold centre stage through communication giving 'anecdote' style talks to maintain authority. Is our language changing because of this? To accommodate women without the 'connotations of profoundity'? This is shown through Margaret Thatcher having lessons to make her voice more 'manly', to sound like a person (man) who holds authority, showing that in the past people have tried changing their accent and language use. Was this a wise thing for her to reveal, or did that start the whole frenzy on sexism involved in language and why our language now has to change because of women not feeling 'valued' enough to appeal to be powerful when talking?
To 'put to bed' a lot of issues surrounding gender inequality in language, Gary Nunn's article suggested releasing a 'gender-neutral pronoun' - this way, people can have the choice of keeping themselves anonymous in many different scenarios by not giving away information on their gender, and can help with supposed sexist terms where men are perceived to be superior such as phrases like "it's every man for himself", and "man up" - both have connotations to strength and willpower, something stereotypically linked to men, and unfortunately not to women, linking to Mary Beard's thoughts on the matter.
In addition to this, changes have already been made in relation to a change in language due to gender issues, mainly relating to sexist terms, as many previous marked terms such as policeman and policewoman now becoming police officer to offer equality in occupational job roles.
Why is our language changing due to gender issues?
Despite believing we are a gender friendly community, equal to all, only recently has our language been changing due to issues regarding gender. Why were there issues in the first place? To what extent are these issues changing our language? you may ask...
According to many language theorists, it may actually be our views on language that is changing - not the language itself. Renowned gender theorist Robin Lakoff claimed that female language is 'deficient' compared to men's due to certain language features women use which supposedly show uncertainty and a weakness in language such as 'tag questions', added onto the ends of sentences to gain an understanding with the receiver such as "isn't it?" You know? In response to Lakoff believing women are 'deficient', Pamela Fishman claims that actually these uncertainty features women use are signs of showing power in the conversation without actually dominating it, dictating who speaks, co-operating with other members of the conversation. This adds a different perspective on the whole issue of gender equality in language, along with the straightforward approach Deborah Cameron has in insisting that men and women do not talk differently, therefore discounting the fact there are gender issues in language, as people 'do gender' - a way of talking in a way that suits your audience and situation.
Scholar Mary Beard once claimed that women who claim a public voice get treated badly - like 'freakish androgynes' - and are not valued as highly as men when seemingly trying to establish authority, declaring that women are a 'mute' in the public sphere. In addition to this, she later claimed that men are 'deep-voiced with connotations of profoundity', something that females are stereotypically not associated with, meaning men generally dominate conversations using their 'rapport' style according to Deborah Tannen, a way in which men hold centre stage through communication giving 'anecdote' style talks to maintain authority. Is our language changing because of this? To accommodate women without the 'connotations of profoundity'? This is shown through Margaret Thatcher having lessons to make her voice more 'manly', to sound like a person (man) who holds authority, showing that in the past people have tried changing their accent and language use. Was this a wise thing for her to reveal, or did that start the whole frenzy on sexism involved in language and why our language now has to change because of women not feeling 'valued' enough to appeal to be powerful when talking?
To 'put to bed' a lot of issues surrounding gender inequality in language, Gary Nunn's article suggested releasing a 'gender-neutral pronoun' - this way, people can have the choice of keeping themselves anonymous in many different scenarios by not giving away information on their gender, and can help with supposed sexist terms where men are perceived to be superior such as phrases like "it's every man for himself", and "man up" - both have connotations to strength and willpower, something stereotypically linked to men, and unfortunately not to women, linking to Mary Beard's thoughts on the matter.
In addition to this, changes have already been made in relation to a change in language due to gender issues, mainly relating to sexist terms, as many previous marked terms such as policeman and policewoman now becoming police officer to offer equality in occupational job roles.
Friday, 11 March 2016
Comparing different texts
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.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)