Target audience: readers of Red Magazine (working class women and possible feminists).
The way that we use language helps shape us into the person we are. Our freedom of speech, and the ways we choose to use it, allows us to express ourselves. Our generation is persistently publicizing equality in language, but many people have been led to ask the same question: is it really the way that we use language that is changing to adapt to gender issues, or is it just our opinions of the way that we use language that are adjusting? Do our perceptions of the way that women 'should' speak mean that, although women have the right to speak freely, they are restricted by what society believes they are 'allowed' to say?
Language and gender theorist Robin Lakoff had the opinion that women used certain features of language (such as tag questions), that made 'female language' the deficit of 'male language'. Lakoff used the deficit theory to argue that the way women asked questions such as 'isn't it' when in conversations, as well as the use of other language features, shows that women are unsure and lack confidence in what they are saying. However, another gender theorist, Pamela Fishman argued that tag questions actually showed power and dominance on women's behalf. They were used to show that women were interacting well with other participants to show interest and help guide the conversation by dictating a topic and the next person to take turn. The opposing ideas of each theorist could support the idea that the way we use language has not changed, but the way we view the certain language features that others use dictates our opinions of language equality between genders.
Mary Beard, scholar, investigated the idea that women who show power in speech are seen as 'freakish' if they use language features that are 'not in their nature'.
Nf.
Friday, 15 April 2016
Monday, 22 February 2016
Language and Representation Task
How would you describe yourself as a speaker?
From the transcript that we wrote up during our task in lesson, I have found the following about how I am as a speaker:
From the transcript that we wrote up during our task in lesson, I have found the following about how I am as a speaker:
- Timid/nervous : I was laughing and pausing quite often during the time that I spoke, which could suggest that I may have felt awkward or uncomfortable; and possibly unsure about what to say. Although, as a group, we discussed that this reaction may have been an impact of being aware that our speech was being recorded, therefore it may have been less natural and a false representation of the way that we speak in conversation. It could also be impacted by how comfortable we felt with the subject of conversation and the person we were talking to.
- However, I also found that I was the more confident speaker in this situation as I took more turns on average and spoke for slightly longer. I also set the agenda by self-selecting to take the first turn. On the other hand, the number of turns I took may not be evidence that I was the more confident speaker, as they were often interruptions to show my agreement with what the other person was saying (which could be less significant). Similarly, I may have only spoken for longer because I often took long pauses when speaking, suggesting that I may not have been confident when speaking, therefor had to take longer to think about what I was going to say.
- The content of the conversation may not have given a good representation I how I am as a speaker, as the subject of occupation was not something I had a lot to talk about. This made it hated to talk in depth about something when I didn't know what to say. It also made it difficult for the other participant as they did not have a job themselves, therefore could not talk about personal experiences.
Tuesday, 16 February 2016
Research On Gender
Deborah Cameron's Discursive model
Dale Spender:
- Men and women do not use language differently in any significant way
- It is the idea that you perform your gender: 'doing gender'
- "Your genes don't determine your jeans"
Dale Spender:
- Feminist scholar that wrote the book 'Man Made Language'
- "male superiority is a myth". "It is because males have had power that they have been in a position to construct the myth of male superiority and have it accepted."
- "language is our means of classifying and ordering the world: our means of manipulating reality"
- Does not agree with the semantic rule in language that male is the norm
- Focused on some of the features of women's language considered by Lakoff:
- Tag Questions : questions do not signal uncertainty or powerlessness, but are instead used by women as a means of keeping conversation going.
- Women use tag questions to gain conversational power; it is required when speaking to men as they often respond minimally.
- Experimented by recording conversations between American male-female couples. She found that women used tag questions when following a thought of suggestion.
- Differences in male and female language is explained in terms of expectations; men are more dominant because it is what is expected of them by society.
- Women have to do more of the 'conversational shitwork' because men are less concerned to do so.
O'Barr and Atkin's challenge to the deficit theory (1980)
- Suggested that there is no real difference in male and female language, but the situations that they were in result in different ways of which they use language.
- "Women's language or a Powerless Language" was the title of the book that they wrote.
- They studied the language of a courtroom and found women's language to be both powerful and assertive.
- Witnesses of both sexes used the features of Lakoff's 'female language'.
- Their conclusion : "these traits are actually a 'powerless language' rather than the 'female language".
Mary Beard
- "Part of growing up as a man is learning to take control of public utterance and silence the female..."
- "The woman will speak and then wait for a response relevant to her argument. Then a man will intervene with 'what I was saying was...', with no relevance to what she has just said. It is as though the woman does not exist; men ignore her, dehumanize and silence her".
- "If a female takes on the stereotypes of 'male language', they are accused of 'barking' or 'yapping' (being 'bossy'). It is considered freakish as it is 'not of a woman's nature'".
Beattie
- Found that men and women interrupted more or less equally (men 34.1 average, women 33.8 average) - so men did interrupt more, but by a margin so slight that it was not significant.
- "The problem with this is that you might simply have one very voluble man in the study which has a disproportionate effect on the total".
- "Why do interruptions necessarily reflect dominance? Can interruptions not arise from other sources? Do some interruptions not reflect interest and involvement?"
John Gray
- The most common relationship problems between men and women are a result of fundamental psychological differences between the two sexes.
- Each sex is acclimated to it's own 'planet's' society and customs, but not to the others.
- Each sex can be understood in terms of distinct ways in which they respond to stress:
- Men 'retreat to their cave' to avoid the problem and forget about it,
- Women prefer to talk to someone and seek advice; even if it does not provide a solution.
- This can create conflict, as men retreat whereas women want to feel closer to someone.
- "Men are motivated when they feel needed while women are motivated when they feel cherished"
- "We are unique individuals with unique experiences"
Bibliography in notes.
Sunday, 6 December 2015
Bernstein Restricted and Elaborated Codes (1971)
The construct of elaborated and restricted language codes was introduced by
Basil Bernstein in 1971 and was stimulated by his experience teaching in
further education. The codes further explained that working-class pupils'
performance in English-based subjects was relatively poor; whereas, they were
achieving middle-class counterparts on mathematical-based subjects.
There are two different codes :
Bernstein asked a group of young children describe a scene from a comic strip. He recorded their replies and saw how their use and arrangement of language differed - labelling each as restricted and elaborated
Some of the young children : "They're playing football
and he kicks it and it goes through there
it breaks the window and they're looking at it
and he comes out
and shouts at them
because they've broken it
so they've run away
and then she looks out
and she tells them off"
How the others described the comic strip :
"Three boys are playing football and one boy kicks the ball
and it goes through the window
and the boys are looking at it
and a man comes out and shout at them
because they've broken the window
so they run away
and then that lady looks out of her window
and she tells the boys off."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basil_Bernstein
There are two different codes :
- The restricted code - was assumed to be suitable to insiders who shared assumptions and common understandings about the topic at hand
- The elaborated code did not assume that the listener shared these common assumptions or understandings. Therefore elaborated language describes the person’s arrangement of language used as much more descriptive, complex and thorough - to enable outsiders to the conversation to understand more clearly.
- In the case of an elaborated code, the speaker will select from a relatively extensive range of alternatives.
- In the case of a restricted code the number of these alternatives is often severely limited.
Bernstein asked a group of young children describe a scene from a comic strip. He recorded their replies and saw how their use and arrangement of language differed - labelling each as restricted and elaborated
Some of the young children : "They're playing football
and he kicks it and it goes through there
it breaks the window and they're looking at it
and he comes out
and shouts at them
because they've broken it
so they've run away
and then she looks out
and she tells them off"
and the boys are looking at it
and a man comes out and shout at them
because they've broken the window
so they run away
and then that lady looks out of her window
and she tells the boys off."
- restricted code requires the presence of someone from within the same social group or restricted community as they must have background knowledge to be able to understand.
- However, elaborated code spells everything out to outside parties and is necessary so that everyone can understand.
Bibliography
http://www.doceo.co.uk/background/language_codes.htmhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basil_Bernstein
Monday, 16 November 2015
Accents and Dialect Article
How are Accents and Dialect Changing in the Current Day?
Your dialect is different features of English Language and grammar that show you belong to a particular regional group. The UK has countless accents that have been formed and shaped by thousands of years of history. But in an age where so many people are migrating to different regional areas for jobs, universities or just a fresh start; often we find that their dialects and accents are moving, changing and adapting along with them (sometimes without them even knowing). We have reached a time where the language and dialects we use are so diverse that the once common accent of received pronunciation (standard English) is becoming archaic.Frequently we use geographical and social dialect to judge different things we seemingly think we know about people; where they're from, what they like, what job they have, what personality traits they hold - many times very stereotypically. These very concepts help us to build relationships and gain a broader understanding of one another. However, we can also use each others accent and dialect together to feel closer to the person we are talking to; hence why we often find ourselves changing our dialect to imitate the other person's through convergence, further explaining why dialects are changing in the current day.
Although, adapting the way we speak to suit new people and situations contradicts this very theory as changing your dialect - or 'putting it on' - can change the way that people judge your character based on regional accents and stereotypes.
The strong influence of reality television programmes such as 'Geordie Shore' can also have an enormous impact on the change in dialect and language, as research finds that Geordie was one of the most irritating accents to Brits; could that be because of the impact of this show? Many young teenagers that are some of the most frequent viewers of reality shows, will often adapt their dialect based on the influence of other peoples speech; possibly because it has become normal to them or that they do it to diverge away from another persons dialect to irritate them. But it can also be this reaction that causes a different change in dialect where, for example, those with strong Newcastle accents may shy away and tame their accent in different regional accents to create positive relationships with other people outside of their own region.
All in all, some people could argue that although our dialects are constantly changing to suit different situations and social groups; we each have our own individual idiolect that represents our personality and the way we were bought up, that can in fact be shaped and adapted, but never truly change into something that we are not.
used some information from : http://dialectblog.com/british-accents/
Monday, 2 November 2015
Questions and answers on the barrister transcript
1. What do you notice about the use of proper nouns and/or pronouns in referring to people and events concerned?
Firstly, the barrister addresses the intended audience (Mr Neil) by his name - e.g. according to you Mr Neil - and most likely does this so that people within the court room (including Mr Neil) know who is being spoken to. This is also a very formal way of speaking so supports the surroundings that they are in; they are in a Scottish court, therefore they will be discussing and important matter and representing the laws and officials of that country. The use of proper nouns could also be used by the barrister as he has a very important job that requires his to speak in a formal manner.
On line 15, the barrister once again uses the proper noun Mr Neil but this time puts emphasis on the words he uses. This could be done to create a more serious atmosphere where Mr Neil would be put under pressure; therefore, may be used as a tactic to make him crack under pressure so that he speaks truthfully and answers quickly. The emphasis on the name could also suggest that the barrister is becoming irritated by Mr Neil and impatient.
On the other hand, Mr Neil uses improper language and second person pronouns such as ''em' (when referring to the police) rather than 'them'; as it would be if in a form of written text. The use of this informal language may suggest that the character has a certain idiolect and most likely a regional Scottish accent that means he does not use correct English Language when speaking.
2. Which parts of the dialogue seem prepared or part of courtroom conventions and which seem spontaneous (said without thinking before hand)?
In this transcript it appears that the more spontaneous and unplanned speech comes from Mr Neil. The use of long pauses and fillers such as 'er' suggest this as it implies that Mr Neil is thinking of a reply and what to say as he is speaking. This would be expected as in a courtroom he would not know the sort of questions that the barrister would ask him therefore his answers would be unplanned.
However, you could argue that Mr Neil planned what he was going to say and what story he was going to tell; but he would not have been able to plan how he would say this as, prior to the courtroom scene, he would only be able to predict what the barrister was going to ask him.
On the other hand, the barristers speech seems more prepared and rehearsed. You would expect the questions that he is asking to be pre prepared as the use of interrogation seems to be a common convention of courtroom procedures. The only part of the barristers speech that you could argue may not be prepared is when he repeats new information that Mr Neil has given him.
3. who seems to have the most power in the dialogue and why?
In this dialogue it seems that the most power and authority lies with the barrister; which would be an expected convention of a courtroom procedure as he has one of the most important roles. The amount of power that he holds could be shown through the frequent amount of questions that he asks.
The barrister could also show power over Mr Neil as he seems to manipulate what he says to make him look guilty; and to try and lure the truth out of him. For example he uses what Mr Neil says to come up with 'you put two and two together Mr Neil and made five', which shows power as he uses manipulation to make Mr Neil seem guilty. This works in the barristers favour as Mr Neil becomes quickly agitated and then goes on to admit the truth.
In addition, the barrister seems to have possession over the conversation as he decides what is going to be spoken about and what he wants Mr Neil to say; once again shown through the use of questioning which seems to be a common courtroom procedure. This could also imply that Mr Neil has little power in the court room as he does not have a large amount of say in the discussion and what is being spoken about - it is almost as if he his being told what to say by the barrister?
Mr Neil also shows a lack of power in the courtroom as he often pauses and hesitates before he says things. This could be seen as lacking power as it makes him come across as nervous and unsure about what to say (cracking under pressure).
4. What else seems puzzling/interesting/unusual and why?
Personally I think that the language used in this transcript seems like a normal courtroom procedure; therefore, I do not find anything that unusual. I believe that frequent questioning form the barrister, and nervous and hesitant replies from Mr Neil are very expected of the type of language used in a courtroom.
Firstly, the barrister addresses the intended audience (Mr Neil) by his name - e.g. according to you Mr Neil - and most likely does this so that people within the court room (including Mr Neil) know who is being spoken to. This is also a very formal way of speaking so supports the surroundings that they are in; they are in a Scottish court, therefore they will be discussing and important matter and representing the laws and officials of that country. The use of proper nouns could also be used by the barrister as he has a very important job that requires his to speak in a formal manner.
On line 15, the barrister once again uses the proper noun Mr Neil but this time puts emphasis on the words he uses. This could be done to create a more serious atmosphere where Mr Neil would be put under pressure; therefore, may be used as a tactic to make him crack under pressure so that he speaks truthfully and answers quickly. The emphasis on the name could also suggest that the barrister is becoming irritated by Mr Neil and impatient.
On the other hand, Mr Neil uses improper language and second person pronouns such as ''em' (when referring to the police) rather than 'them'; as it would be if in a form of written text. The use of this informal language may suggest that the character has a certain idiolect and most likely a regional Scottish accent that means he does not use correct English Language when speaking.
2. Which parts of the dialogue seem prepared or part of courtroom conventions and which seem spontaneous (said without thinking before hand)?
In this transcript it appears that the more spontaneous and unplanned speech comes from Mr Neil. The use of long pauses and fillers such as 'er' suggest this as it implies that Mr Neil is thinking of a reply and what to say as he is speaking. This would be expected as in a courtroom he would not know the sort of questions that the barrister would ask him therefore his answers would be unplanned.
However, you could argue that Mr Neil planned what he was going to say and what story he was going to tell; but he would not have been able to plan how he would say this as, prior to the courtroom scene, he would only be able to predict what the barrister was going to ask him.
On the other hand, the barristers speech seems more prepared and rehearsed. You would expect the questions that he is asking to be pre prepared as the use of interrogation seems to be a common convention of courtroom procedures. The only part of the barristers speech that you could argue may not be prepared is when he repeats new information that Mr Neil has given him.
3. who seems to have the most power in the dialogue and why?
In this dialogue it seems that the most power and authority lies with the barrister; which would be an expected convention of a courtroom procedure as he has one of the most important roles. The amount of power that he holds could be shown through the frequent amount of questions that he asks.
The barrister could also show power over Mr Neil as he seems to manipulate what he says to make him look guilty; and to try and lure the truth out of him. For example he uses what Mr Neil says to come up with 'you put two and two together Mr Neil and made five', which shows power as he uses manipulation to make Mr Neil seem guilty. This works in the barristers favour as Mr Neil becomes quickly agitated and then goes on to admit the truth.
In addition, the barrister seems to have possession over the conversation as he decides what is going to be spoken about and what he wants Mr Neil to say; once again shown through the use of questioning which seems to be a common courtroom procedure. This could also imply that Mr Neil has little power in the court room as he does not have a large amount of say in the discussion and what is being spoken about - it is almost as if he his being told what to say by the barrister?
Mr Neil also shows a lack of power in the courtroom as he often pauses and hesitates before he says things. This could be seen as lacking power as it makes him come across as nervous and unsure about what to say (cracking under pressure).
4. What else seems puzzling/interesting/unusual and why?
Personally I think that the language used in this transcript seems like a normal courtroom procedure; therefore, I do not find anything that unusual. I believe that frequent questioning form the barrister, and nervous and hesitant replies from Mr Neil are very expected of the type of language used in a courtroom.
Sunday, 1 November 2015
Work set 02/10/2015 : Controversial issue Blogs
: Think of a controversial issue and imagine two characters who would have opposing views. They should write as if each of those characters were blogging their arguments, trying to create really different, realistic voice (idiolect) for each. One could be responding to the others ideas or not.
Blog One:
Andrew
42 years old
High school teacher
Blog One:
Andrew
42 years old
High school teacher
PERSONAL VIEWS ON SAME SEX MARRIAGE
If you often read my blog you will know that I am a motivated and easily inspired teacher at a local high school. Therefore, I have decided to give my opinion on what I believe will be an important historical event that has recently hit our nation.
As I expect most will have heard; the big news is that same sex marriage has officially been made legal in the United States of America. As a devoted Catholic I understand that my views may anger others and for that I do apologise in advance. However, growing up more understanding towards the beliefs of others in regard to my Catholic beliefs, I am open to hear anyone's opinions and hopefully gain a better understanding of your thoughts.
Now, although I do believe that every person - no matter their sexuality - owns their right to live happily in marriage with another and deserve all respect from others, my beliefs have led me to the opinion that gay marriage is not acceptable within the Church of God.
Growing up as a part of a religious family, I was always taught that same sex marriage could destroy the sanctity of marriage, and more importantly is against the word God. In my opinion if we disregard one word of God by agreeing to the legalisation of same sex marriage in the Church - the home of God - then we are agreeing to forget other important religious teachings.
I was also taught that the tradition of marriage was that of a faithful and lifelong union between a man and woman, and together they shall be joined as husband and wife in a partnership based on love. I am not arguing that same sex marriage is not built upon faith and love, but only that it was not taught as right or part of the norm in my community.
However, all that said I am happy that at last everybody, besides their sexuality, has the freedom to unite with those they love in a precious and sacred ceremony; as love and forgiveness for all is also the most important teaching of God.
Also, as this seems such an important and controversial topic, I would like to try to engage with others who have different views; it would be fantastic is you have any comments or opinions that you would like to share :)
Blog Two:
Olivia
19 years old
Well known blogger - travels world and blogs about experiences
YAYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!
Me again! how are all my little munchkins? I am as brilliant as ever (thank you for asking). Actually, I am over the moon! bcos (dramatic pause or drumroll or something) SAME SEX MARRIAGE IS FINALLY LEGAL IN THE USA!!!!
Sorry if this is a little different to my usual posts - because I know you nosy lot love knowing what I'm getting up to! - but I thought that this was just such an important situation to discuss.
So I've been travelling round the US for a little while now (it's incredible btw - check out my other posts and videos if you wanna know more :) ) and recently I stopped off in NYC. Whilst I was there I made the decision to attend a marriage equality pride march as all people being viewed as equal is something that I strongly believe in. My experience was really amazing - so many people from all around America (and some from across the globe; like me!) were there to represent a community; and there were smiles from ear to ear. The brilliant rainbows of colour were such a sight and amazing representation of what we were standing for; peace and happiness.
I met so many people that had so many stories (sadly sometimes very upsetting - but others beautifully heart warming) to share. This is why I am so happy and proud that we have finally reached a time where same sex marriage is accepted by the law, because it gives the wonderful people that I met a chance to live their lives together in happiness - and not have to hide who they are attracted to.
Another thing I wanted to speak about is another blog that I recently came across written by a man named Andrew. it shows views controversial to my own but I respect that the writer is taking other peoples feelings into consideration. I left the link below - Take a look and leave some comments sharing your opinion : I have too and I think it would be really helpful and interesting to see what you think:) I also left a link to my blog in the comments so if by any chance Andrew sees this - I hope it helps you understand the importance of marriage equality to others:)
Anyways im out now - big day ahead of me! bye bye.
Sorry if this is a little different to my usual posts - because I know you nosy lot love knowing what I'm getting up to! - but I thought that this was just such an important situation to discuss.
So I've been travelling round the US for a little while now (it's incredible btw - check out my other posts and videos if you wanna know more :) ) and recently I stopped off in NYC. Whilst I was there I made the decision to attend a marriage equality pride march as all people being viewed as equal is something that I strongly believe in. My experience was really amazing - so many people from all around America (and some from across the globe; like me!) were there to represent a community; and there were smiles from ear to ear. The brilliant rainbows of colour were such a sight and amazing representation of what we were standing for; peace and happiness.
I met so many people that had so many stories (sadly sometimes very upsetting - but others beautifully heart warming) to share. This is why I am so happy and proud that we have finally reached a time where same sex marriage is accepted by the law, because it gives the wonderful people that I met a chance to live their lives together in happiness - and not have to hide who they are attracted to.
Another thing I wanted to speak about is another blog that I recently came across written by a man named Andrew. it shows views controversial to my own but I respect that the writer is taking other peoples feelings into consideration. I left the link below - Take a look and leave some comments sharing your opinion : I have too and I think it would be really helpful and interesting to see what you think:) I also left a link to my blog in the comments so if by any chance Andrew sees this - I hope it helps you understand the importance of marriage equality to others:)
Anyways im out now - big day ahead of me! bye bye.
#Lovewins 💙💙💙💙
Bibliography:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)