Callum: Junior talk about your job in the co-op
Junior: I work at the cooperative in Bath (.) what else am I suppose to say?
....
Junior: Well I have to (.) when there is a delivery I have to put stock out on the shelves (.) you have to do this thing called stock rotation this is when all the new stock you have to move all the old stuff to the front and all the new stuff to the back to make sure the sell by date doesn't run out before it is sold
In this conversation I did not take control of the conversation as suggested in Zimmerman and wests dominance model, this can be backed up by my tag question in my first bit of speech it could be interpreted as me looking for guidance on what else to say. However once the topic of the conversation was set I began to confidently speak about my job and what I do, when speaking I was being straight to the point informing only about my job and what has to be done,
Monday, 22 February 2016
Tuesday, 9 February 2016
Still I Rise - Poem by Maya Angelou 1978
You may write me down in history
With your bitter, twisted lies,
You may tread me in the very dirt
But still, like dust, I'll rise.
Does my sassiness upset you?
Why are you beset with gloom?
'Cause I walk like I've got oil wells
Pumping in my living room.
Just like moons and like suns,
With the certainty of tides,
Just like hopes springing high,
Still I'll rise.
Did you want to see me broken?
Bowed head and lowered eyes?
Shoulders falling down like teardrops.
Weakened by my soulful cries.
Does my haughtiness offend you?
Don't you take it awful hard
'Cause I laugh like I've got gold mines
Diggin' in my own back yard.
You may shoot me with your words,
You may cut me with your eyes,
You may kill me with your hatefulness,
But still, like air, I'll rise.
Does my sexiness upset you?
Does it come as a surprise
That I dance like I've got diamonds
At the meeting of my thighs?
Out of the huts of history's shame
I rise
Up from a past that's rooted in pain
I rise
I'm a black ocean, leaping and wide,
Welling and swelling I bear in the tide.
Leaving behind nights of terror and fear
I rise
Into a daybreak that's wondrously clear
I rise
Bringing the gifts that my ancestors gave,
I am the dream and the hope of the slave.
I rise
I rise
I rise.
Maya Angelou's message in this poem is to stand up with your head held high. The first word 'You' is a self assertive word suggesting that this poem is addressed to others strongly backed up by the date of when the poem was written. In the third stanza Maya Angelou is writing in the future tense to implies that her and all African American women's rise is inevitable. Maya Angelou also says that 'i'm a black ocean, leaping and wide' this verse is a powerful metaphor for Angelou overcoming the oppression of white people in 1978. The use of the repetition of 'I rise' at the end of the poem helps the reader become aware of the main theme of this poem which is Maya Angelou and African American people overcoming the oppression of society in that time and to stand proud.
With your bitter, twisted lies,
You may tread me in the very dirt
But still, like dust, I'll rise.
Does my sassiness upset you?
Why are you beset with gloom?
'Cause I walk like I've got oil wells
Pumping in my living room.
Just like moons and like suns,
With the certainty of tides,
Just like hopes springing high,
Still I'll rise.
Did you want to see me broken?
Bowed head and lowered eyes?
Shoulders falling down like teardrops.
Weakened by my soulful cries.
Does my haughtiness offend you?
Don't you take it awful hard
'Cause I laugh like I've got gold mines
Diggin' in my own back yard.
You may shoot me with your words,
You may cut me with your eyes,
You may kill me with your hatefulness,
But still, like air, I'll rise.
Does my sexiness upset you?
Does it come as a surprise
That I dance like I've got diamonds
At the meeting of my thighs?
Out of the huts of history's shame
I rise
Up from a past that's rooted in pain
I rise
I'm a black ocean, leaping and wide,
Welling and swelling I bear in the tide.
Leaving behind nights of terror and fear
I rise
Into a daybreak that's wondrously clear
I rise
Bringing the gifts that my ancestors gave,
I am the dream and the hope of the slave.
I rise
I rise
I rise.
Maya Angelou's message in this poem is to stand up with your head held high. The first word 'You' is a self assertive word suggesting that this poem is addressed to others strongly backed up by the date of when the poem was written. In the third stanza Maya Angelou is writing in the future tense to implies that her and all African American women's rise is inevitable. Maya Angelou also says that 'i'm a black ocean, leaping and wide' this verse is a powerful metaphor for Angelou overcoming the oppression of white people in 1978. The use of the repetition of 'I rise' at the end of the poem helps the reader become aware of the main theme of this poem which is Maya Angelou and African American people overcoming the oppression of society in that time and to stand proud.
Thursday, 10 December 2015
Labov 1963 Martha's Vineyard
This study was taken place on an island 3 miles off New England on the US East Coast called Martha Vineyard. This study was focused on the social influences on different dialects, Labov collected data by interviewing multiple informants talking about topics that would involve words with desired vowels. Labov found that the islanders chose to differentiate from the mainlands as they rejected the values and resented the intrusion of tourists. The islanders did this as they wanted to establish themselves as an independent social group with superior status to tourists.
This study was relevant because until then dialect change only focused on rural factors not social factors but based on Labov's study the conclusion was that social factors were most important factors to dialect change. Labov established that a number of factors were involved in dialect change not just locale, he also established that prestige matters (over and covert)
Bibliographies:
http://www.putlearningfirst.com/language/research/vinyard.html
http://www.mvtimes.com/2011/08/16/50-years-language-study-began-marthas-vineyard-6918/
This study was relevant because until then dialect change only focused on rural factors not social factors but based on Labov's study the conclusion was that social factors were most important factors to dialect change. Labov established that a number of factors were involved in dialect change not just locale, he also established that prestige matters (over and covert)
Bibliographies:
http://www.putlearningfirst.com/language/research/vinyard.html
http://www.mvtimes.com/2011/08/16/50-years-language-study-began-marthas-vineyard-6918/
Jennifer Lawrence
Contexual Features of the text
After the Sony hacking scandal Sony had sensitive information leaked on the world wide web, this information included the wages of what some stars made in a movie. this exposed that the females were being paid a significant amount less than the male stars in the movie. The context of Jennifer Lawrence's article is her responding to the news about how she made less money than her colleagues this news has left Jennifer Lawrence both upset and angry this led to her writing this article on the issue.
'Male' and 'Female' language
Jennifer Lawrence supports and contradicts Lakoff's theory about men and women speaking differently. Throughout Jennifer Lawrence's article she uses both male and female language such as 'fuck that' taboo words are more frequent among men this is because they are seen as terrible words with bad meaning behind them. Throughout Jennifer Lawrence's article she frequently uses taboo words, this is seen as a male way of speaking because as the typical stereo type is that men swear more than women. Jennifer Lawrence is very direct when writing her article as she uses many imperatives and many swear words to get her point across and to try and make the reader feel her anger, this constantly contradicts Robin Lakoff's theory. Throughout the article Jennifer Lawrence does not include a lot of humour which supports Lackoff's theory as she says 'women do not have a sense of humour' however she does include a few sarky comments such as 'i found out how much less i was being paid than the lucky people with dicks',
Conclusion
I agree with her point that men use their dominant nature to get what they want. Whereas females may not take the same approach as males to get what they want as they may use indirect requests such as stated in Robin Lakoff's theory
After the Sony hacking scandal Sony had sensitive information leaked on the world wide web, this information included the wages of what some stars made in a movie. this exposed that the females were being paid a significant amount less than the male stars in the movie. The context of Jennifer Lawrence's article is her responding to the news about how she made less money than her colleagues this news has left Jennifer Lawrence both upset and angry this led to her writing this article on the issue.
'Male' and 'Female' language
Jennifer Lawrence supports and contradicts Lakoff's theory about men and women speaking differently. Throughout Jennifer Lawrence's article she uses both male and female language such as 'fuck that' taboo words are more frequent among men this is because they are seen as terrible words with bad meaning behind them. Throughout Jennifer Lawrence's article she frequently uses taboo words, this is seen as a male way of speaking because as the typical stereo type is that men swear more than women. Jennifer Lawrence is very direct when writing her article as she uses many imperatives and many swear words to get her point across and to try and make the reader feel her anger, this constantly contradicts Robin Lakoff's theory. Throughout the article Jennifer Lawrence does not include a lot of humour which supports Lackoff's theory as she says 'women do not have a sense of humour' however she does include a few sarky comments such as 'i found out how much less i was being paid than the lucky people with dicks',
Conclusion
I agree with her point that men use their dominant nature to get what they want. Whereas females may not take the same approach as males to get what they want as they may use indirect requests such as stated in Robin Lakoff's theory
Monday, 16 November 2015
Dialect change
The English language today has many different dialects each person’s spoken English has unique variations. Differences in speech can be due to age, sex, health, size, personality, emotional state and personal idiosyncrasies so are dialects changing?
Dialects are changing due to the fact of people moving inside and out the country, with the constant moving of people some dialects can not be associated with one place. This makes it difficult for foreigners to distinguish which dialect is which.
The reason why dialects are seen to be changing is because of bidialectalism, this is when someone uses two dialects or accents of the same language. This is commonly seen in the youth of today as in a formal setting their dialects will change to suit the setting whereas when they are with their friends they will often switch to their non standard dialect.
Dialect leveling is a linguistic phenomenon studied and observed by dialectologists and sociolinguists. Dialect leveling is the decrease of differences in dialects, it is believed that this can be due to more people moving from rural areas into towns and cities standardizing the English language. Dialect leveling can be influenced by the different types of media. Dialect leveling occurs mostly in socially and geographically mobile groups and in contexts where people have a tendency to adapt to their listener in order to ensure they better understand.People who come to a new town adapt their language and unconsciously leave out local language elements so that the hearer will understand them better.
Dialects are changing due to the fact of people moving inside and out the country, with the constant moving of people some dialects can not be associated with one place. This makes it difficult for foreigners to distinguish which dialect is which.
The reason why dialects are seen to be changing is because of bidialectalism, this is when someone uses two dialects or accents of the same language. This is commonly seen in the youth of today as in a formal setting their dialects will change to suit the setting whereas when they are with their friends they will often switch to their non standard dialect.
Dialect leveling is a linguistic phenomenon studied and observed by dialectologists and sociolinguists. Dialect leveling is the decrease of differences in dialects, it is believed that this can be due to more people moving from rural areas into towns and cities standardizing the English language. Dialect leveling can be influenced by the different types of media. Dialect leveling occurs mostly in socially and geographically mobile groups and in contexts where people have a tendency to adapt to their listener in order to ensure they better understand.People who come to a new town adapt their language and unconsciously leave out local language elements so that the hearer will understand them better.
Tuesday, 20 October 2015
Transcript work
What do you notice about the use of proper nouns and/or pronouns in referring to people and events concerned
In this transcript the Barrister holds power over Mr Neil, when Mr Neil is speaking there are lots of short pauses, filler words and constant repetition of words. This can imply that Mr Neil feels quite unsettled when speaking to the Barrister. When addressing Mr Neil the Barrister calls him by his title 'Mr Neil' this can set the level of formality at this event as he is not using a personal pronoun.
Which parts of dialogue seems prepared or part of a courtroom conventions and which seems spontaneous
Throughout the transcript the Barrister is constantly asking Mr Neil questions that he has prepared, it is implied that he has prepared the questions from the lack of short pauses he has. Whereas when Mr Neil is answering his questions it suggests from the time taken to reply to his questions. When the Barrister says 'The rear of your car (.) now (.) did anything happen to you (.) as a result of driving your car that day?' Mr Neil takes 2.5 seconds to reply with a one word answer and straight after with no delays the Barrister replies, when the Barrister constantly does this it makes Mr Neil feel unsettled as he feels the pressure from the Barrister.
Who seems to have the most power in the dialogue and why?
The Barrister has the most power in this transcript as he is the more confident speaker. When Mr Neil speaks he has lots of repetition 'no i can't remember 'em seeing me no' he has lots of fillers 'er i accidentally (.) bumped it slightly with er' and he has lots of short pauses '(2.5) no' all this can suggest is that Mr Neil feels unsettled by the questions that the Barrister has asked him.
What else seems puzzling/interesting/unusual and why?
I do not find this transcript interesting or unusual, i find it very conventional as it is just a court examination. In this transcript it is just Mr Neil asking yes/no questions it is dominated by the Barrister asking questions, given the context this is exactly how i'd expect it to be.
In this transcript the Barrister holds power over Mr Neil, when Mr Neil is speaking there are lots of short pauses, filler words and constant repetition of words. This can imply that Mr Neil feels quite unsettled when speaking to the Barrister. When addressing Mr Neil the Barrister calls him by his title 'Mr Neil' this can set the level of formality at this event as he is not using a personal pronoun.
Which parts of dialogue seems prepared or part of a courtroom conventions and which seems spontaneous
Throughout the transcript the Barrister is constantly asking Mr Neil questions that he has prepared, it is implied that he has prepared the questions from the lack of short pauses he has. Whereas when Mr Neil is answering his questions it suggests from the time taken to reply to his questions. When the Barrister says 'The rear of your car (.) now (.) did anything happen to you (.) as a result of driving your car that day?' Mr Neil takes 2.5 seconds to reply with a one word answer and straight after with no delays the Barrister replies, when the Barrister constantly does this it makes Mr Neil feel unsettled as he feels the pressure from the Barrister.
Who seems to have the most power in the dialogue and why?
The Barrister has the most power in this transcript as he is the more confident speaker. When Mr Neil speaks he has lots of repetition 'no i can't remember 'em seeing me no' he has lots of fillers 'er i accidentally (.) bumped it slightly with er' and he has lots of short pauses '(2.5) no' all this can suggest is that Mr Neil feels unsettled by the questions that the Barrister has asked him.
What else seems puzzling/interesting/unusual and why?
I do not find this transcript interesting or unusual, i find it very conventional as it is just a court examination. In this transcript it is just Mr Neil asking yes/no questions it is dominated by the Barrister asking questions, given the context this is exactly how i'd expect it to be.
Wednesday, 14 October 2015
Controversial articles on legalizing marijuana
Article 1
university student age 19 cannabis user
Okay first things first, cut the crap about the news
calling weed a ‘dangerous’ drug. Today cannabis has loads of medicinal uses
such as relieving muscle spasms, helping glaucoma and appetite loss in HIV or
aids. I mean it even kills cancerous cells! People always feed me this rubbish
about how cannabis is addictive, the only time weed becomes addictive is when
people abuse the substance, I mean hey if you’re a university student like me
looking to have fun with it every now and then, this will be no problem for
you. Besides the average age for any drug user in England is 16-18, people this
age just want to experiment, nothing too serious about it.
Okay if you want to get into the politics sides of things
about legalizing weed then you should know that by legalizing weed taxes could
be reduced by £900m every year, I mean I don’t study politics but I know that’s
good. More money would even be saved as policing cannabis would be gone
approximately £400m would be saved and 10,000 new jobs would be created for
growing weed. By the looks of things there are more positives than negatives if
marijuana gets legalized.
I’m fed up of hearing all this bull shit about how
cannabis should be illegal and alcohol legal, cannabis is way safer! I mean
let’s look at the facts; alcohol causes violence and induces crime, all weed
does is make you really hungry and chilled out. I mean I’m not a scientist or
anything but cannabis sound’s way safer to me.
Legalizing dope will not encourage young people to smoke
it, in Colorado legalizing cannabis has actually lead to a drop in the number
of you people using it. I mean I’ve had tons of experience using cannabis, I
see it more as a social thing rather than just getting high. All my friends who
have used have never gotten addicted to it; I mean coffee is more addictive
than cannabis, what does that say about it?
I mean don’t get me wrong cannabis can have its issues
such as causing schizophrenia, but nothing is perfect every great thing has its
problems. But by the looks of things legalizing cannabis has more positives
than negatives, it would be stupid not to legalize it.
Article 2 Old
man age 67 non user
Recently a petition has been sent to parliament about
legalizing cannabis; over two hundred thousand people have signed this
petition. I my whole life have been against any drug use and think that all
drugs that are not used for medicinal purposes should be illegal. I have never
really understood what is so great about the drug, why not do a legal high? I’ll
never understand kids.
Cannabis is just as dangerous as alcohol, it affects your
ability to drive, it causes damage to your lungs and can affect your mental
health, can someone please tell me what is fun about it? Using cannabis for non
medicinal purposes can bring you into contact with the illegal drug trade,
making it more likely to be exposed by other drugs; cannabis is just a gateway
drug to becoming a Heroin addict.
Lets use Colorado as an example, since they have legalized marijuana 10.47% of Colorado youth ages 12 to 17 are considered marijuana users compared to the 7.55% nationally, Not only that drug-related suspension increased by 32% from the school years 2008-2009 and 2012-2013, the majority of these suspensions were marijuana violations.
The legalization on cannabis will impact the youth massively, and not in a good way. If you do not want your children to experiment with drugs then i strongly advise you to not sign this petition.
The drug laws on marijuana right now are perfect, there is no need for change. Legalizing marijuana is not the answer, it will not improve the economy, it will not reduce drug related crimes and it will not reduce the numbers of youth using it!
Bibliography
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)