Peter Trudgill
Peter Trudgill investigated the ways in which speech varies among different people. He studied that the final consonant sounds in words are different depending on where you are. For example, in Standard English; the -ng sounds on the end of words are frequently used but in Norwich it is rarely used, and just a -n sound is used, in words like "walkin'" and "talkin"
But this isn't just used in Norwich, he studied. He found that higher class/formal areas or people are more likely to use the -ng, while less formal and lower classes use -n on the end of words.
He also found differences between male and female speech, like nonstandard -in' forms occurred much more often in men's speech than women's, and this was true for all social classes.
Women liked to think that they said the -ng' form a lot more than they really did when questioned about what they said. While men stated that they used the -n' sound more than they really did.
Robin Lakoff
Robin Lakoff was a professor of linguists in California and developed a lot of books and accounts of women's speech. She made conclusions about women's speech, that they use a lot of:
Hedging: using words like "kind of" "sorta
Polite terms: "I appreciate it" "would you mind if"
Tag questions: "You're going to dinner, aren't you?"
Use direct quotation: men tend to paraphrase more.
Apologise more.
Speak less frequently.
Use more intensifiers such as "so" and "very"
Lack of sense of humour: don't tell jokes and don't understand punch lines.
Use coarse language.
Use indirect commands and questions .
Have a special lexicon, women have more words for feminine things.
Wednesday, 19 March 2014
Wednesday, 5 March 2014
Language and Gender
In my opinion, there are noticeable differences between the socially acceptable way that both men and women talk, like there are certain expectations they should be satisfying. For example, I think it's never been very acceptable for women to swear, but men have always been more allowed to do it. In school, a male would always be typically punished less if they swore, than a female. This is also a well known stereotype that men do swear or use language profanity a lot more than women, but is that necessarily true? It is seen that more women than men tend to also cover up or sugar coat their swear words, like using "oh goodness" instead of "oh god" to avoid blasphemy or offending anyone. This then also links to the overall general stereotype that women should be more polite than men, using the umbrella term as "being lady-like" linking to sexism and what is expected of them.
Not only due to the spoken language, but women are usually permitted to cry in public and express their emotions more openly. In Key's observation (1975) that "if a woman cries into a pillow, it's 'muffled sobbing' yet if a man cries into a pillow, it's 'blubbering' with negative connotations".
Several writers have also stated that men will use a lot more colloquialism than women, such as shortened words and acronyms, as well as general slang. This was illustrated by the writers Labov (1966), Levine and Crockett (1966) and Trudgill (1972) the latter, who also noted women maintaining standard English more than men, in regional areas and their accents.
I believe that another stereotype portrayed in the modern day is that women are not expected to talk as much as men, and that men should do all the talking/negotiating because that's the more masculine to do. This is also demonstrated by Kramer (1974) who also said that women typically talk less than their male partners.
Wednesday, 26 February 2014
Power Concepts - Gordon Brown
The theorist and theory that i'd refer to in a language and power question, particular in relevance to the Gordon Brown speech is Fairclough.
Fairclough (2001)
The power behind the discourse, as stated by Fairclough, is for political influence, particularly in this speech. The speech is generally for the public in informing them of his motives and what he will achieve as Prime Minister. The secondary purpose is to persuade all those who voted for him, that they made the right choice, and to persuade those who haven't that he will not let them down.
Power in discourse- The speech uses specific features which illustrate the power that the Prime Minister has, and to get his point across. The use of personal pronouns such as "we" demonstrates Fairclough's theory of synthetic personalisation which creates the friendly facade the government are trying to pull in collectively addressing the audience, or in this case, the public.
Ideology- The ideology here is the attitude towards the government, which they are trying to improve from the view points of the public. Therefore, they include a patriotic lexical field, accentuating how great Britain are, especially with the new Prime Minister.
Fairclough (2001)
The power behind the discourse, as stated by Fairclough, is for political influence, particularly in this speech. The speech is generally for the public in informing them of his motives and what he will achieve as Prime Minister. The secondary purpose is to persuade all those who voted for him, that they made the right choice, and to persuade those who haven't that he will not let them down.
Power in discourse- The speech uses specific features which illustrate the power that the Prime Minister has, and to get his point across. The use of personal pronouns such as "we" demonstrates Fairclough's theory of synthetic personalisation which creates the friendly facade the government are trying to pull in collectively addressing the audience, or in this case, the public.
Ideology- The ideology here is the attitude towards the government, which they are trying to improve from the view points of the public. Therefore, they include a patriotic lexical field, accentuating how great Britain are, especially with the new Prime Minister.
Monday, 18 November 2013
AS Language and Technology
I h8 txt msgs: How texting is wrecking our language by John Humphrys
I agree with the majority of this article on the fact that it is changing the way we speak, especially younger people who may not know better, or how the original language was. I think the abbreviations such as 'tks' for thanks and 'u' for 'you' is extremely derogatory and degrading for our generation, and creates this judgement of people that they are actually that dumb, when in reality, they are just too sluggish to write out the entire word.
Personally, I use proper English when typing because it's hard to understand what half of these abbreviations mean, and it takes more time to actually work it out rather than type words. Also, I find that using these contracted forms make you look common and quite stupid, which is why the majority of people that I know don't actually do it. So I think it's a bit unfair to say that the changes in the dictionary are solely to be blamed on texting, as it's just adapting; but texting and technology is guilty.
Cn u txt? by John Sunderland
This article is too shallow minded to agree with, it's feeble-minded and it has a very closed view on the way we type, and generalises the whole of our generation to talk like that. Personally, I have never actually seen a conversation like that being applied in real life, only the fickle mind of the writer here. The whole point here is to discuss how often these dumbed down alternate forms are actually being used, and therefore be realistic here, but this article exaggerates it alot, stereotyping us alot.
2b or not 2b by David Crystal
I agree with this article more because it contradicts the last two articles that are too exaggerated on the stereotypes that the young are the people who mostly use texting, that it is infact not just for the younger generation, and the fact that calling people is a rare event these days. I agree with the fact that people may text too much, I think calling should be used more often, but the problem is that the population of these rich countries, such as the UK, simply do not have the time to call anymore, being a very business associated country. Texting only takes a matter of seconds, and you can do it anywhere without hassling other people, which calling may do, and can be extremely disruptive. Calling is also limiting, you cannot curse or use any even slightly offensive language on the phone because of course, it may offend someone. The appeal of texting is how private and free it can be, which is good in the way that allows people to express themselves more, but may encourage youngsters to become profane.
I also agree with the article when it states that people are taking this way too seriously, and texting/new technology cannot solely be blamed for the modernisation of the language. Why are people only becoming agitated now? As the article also states, these abbreviations have been used for a long time, even the well known IOU which has been dated back to 1618 and the Dictionary of Abbreviations 1942 which had modern abbreviations in it before texting was even invented, which means it is clearly evident that texting is not the only excuse, the main factor probably just being the ever-changing society, which we may be adding to, but are not the only cause.
I agree with the majority of this article on the fact that it is changing the way we speak, especially younger people who may not know better, or how the original language was. I think the abbreviations such as 'tks' for thanks and 'u' for 'you' is extremely derogatory and degrading for our generation, and creates this judgement of people that they are actually that dumb, when in reality, they are just too sluggish to write out the entire word.
Personally, I use proper English when typing because it's hard to understand what half of these abbreviations mean, and it takes more time to actually work it out rather than type words. Also, I find that using these contracted forms make you look common and quite stupid, which is why the majority of people that I know don't actually do it. So I think it's a bit unfair to say that the changes in the dictionary are solely to be blamed on texting, as it's just adapting; but texting and technology is guilty.
Cn u txt? by John Sunderland
This article is too shallow minded to agree with, it's feeble-minded and it has a very closed view on the way we type, and generalises the whole of our generation to talk like that. Personally, I have never actually seen a conversation like that being applied in real life, only the fickle mind of the writer here. The whole point here is to discuss how often these dumbed down alternate forms are actually being used, and therefore be realistic here, but this article exaggerates it alot, stereotyping us alot.
2b or not 2b by David Crystal
I agree with this article more because it contradicts the last two articles that are too exaggerated on the stereotypes that the young are the people who mostly use texting, that it is infact not just for the younger generation, and the fact that calling people is a rare event these days. I agree with the fact that people may text too much, I think calling should be used more often, but the problem is that the population of these rich countries, such as the UK, simply do not have the time to call anymore, being a very business associated country. Texting only takes a matter of seconds, and you can do it anywhere without hassling other people, which calling may do, and can be extremely disruptive. Calling is also limiting, you cannot curse or use any even slightly offensive language on the phone because of course, it may offend someone. The appeal of texting is how private and free it can be, which is good in the way that allows people to express themselves more, but may encourage youngsters to become profane.
I also agree with the article when it states that people are taking this way too seriously, and texting/new technology cannot solely be blamed for the modernisation of the language. Why are people only becoming agitated now? As the article also states, these abbreviations have been used for a long time, even the well known IOU which has been dated back to 1618 and the Dictionary of Abbreviations 1942 which had modern abbreviations in it before texting was even invented, which means it is clearly evident that texting is not the only excuse, the main factor probably just being the ever-changing society, which we may be adding to, but are not the only cause.
Sunday, 20 October 2013
Blog Article (Twitter)
Follow me, maybe.
Or don't! You'll get addicted anyway. There's no escaping the social network giant which is already looming over the majority of us.
The social community has taken us by storm; a storm which will blow your mind. For those of you who do not know, Twitter is a website designed for people to post their updates of the most interesting kind; what they're doing right now. Of course, you can't avoid this; like Facebook, you can access it anywhere, it's available on all platforms of technology (as if we don't have enough to try and avoid on this technology) and literally anyone can access your profile or "tweets" How fun!
"There are 100 million active Twitter users, 50% of these users log in every day" says the 20 Illuminating facts about Twitter: 2012 edition article. Looks like people are literally becoming addicted by this monster being forced upon us, with more joining everyday. The scary thing is you don't even have to send a request to someone to see their profile, unless their privacy settings are otherwise changed, anyone can be eyeing up your updates, anyone can follow you. I mean, do you really want random strangers following you and seeing your every move? It's not socially acceptable in real life, so why is it virtually okay? It sounds like a demented horror movie to me.
Of course, there are financial benefits to this system. From the Guardian article, S Bowers states "Twitter, which is tipped for an $11bn (£7.3bn) stock market flotation in New York, has filed small company accounts in Britain, reporting retained profits last year of just £92,408" which to me, sounds like a big contribution to our worsening economy.
Personally, despite the economically beneficial scheme, I seem to find myself agreeing with S Johnson from The TIME article "How Twitter Will Change the Way We Live", in thinking to myself, "Why does the world need this, exactly?"
What do you think? Are you hooked on followers? Post your comments!
Bibliography
Johnson, S (05/06/09) How Twitter Will Change the Way We Live article in TIME magazine (accessed 20/10/13)
Collier, S (16/07/12) 20 illuminating facts about Twitter: 2012 edition article on PR Daily (accessed 20/10/13)
Bowers, S (05/07/13) Twitter UK reports retained profits of less than £100,000 Guardian article (accessed 20/10/13)
Or don't! You'll get addicted anyway. There's no escaping the social network giant which is already looming over the majority of us.
The social community has taken us by storm; a storm which will blow your mind. For those of you who do not know, Twitter is a website designed for people to post their updates of the most interesting kind; what they're doing right now. Of course, you can't avoid this; like Facebook, you can access it anywhere, it's available on all platforms of technology (as if we don't have enough to try and avoid on this technology) and literally anyone can access your profile or "tweets" How fun!
"There are 100 million active Twitter users, 50% of these users log in every day" says the 20 Illuminating facts about Twitter: 2012 edition article. Looks like people are literally becoming addicted by this monster being forced upon us, with more joining everyday. The scary thing is you don't even have to send a request to someone to see their profile, unless their privacy settings are otherwise changed, anyone can be eyeing up your updates, anyone can follow you. I mean, do you really want random strangers following you and seeing your every move? It's not socially acceptable in real life, so why is it virtually okay? It sounds like a demented horror movie to me.
Of course, there are financial benefits to this system. From the Guardian article, S Bowers states "Twitter, which is tipped for an $11bn (£7.3bn) stock market flotation in New York, has filed small company accounts in Britain, reporting retained profits last year of just £92,408" which to me, sounds like a big contribution to our worsening economy.
Personally, despite the economically beneficial scheme, I seem to find myself agreeing with S Johnson from The TIME article "How Twitter Will Change the Way We Live", in thinking to myself, "Why does the world need this, exactly?"
What do you think? Are you hooked on followers? Post your comments!
Bibliography
Johnson, S (05/06/09) How Twitter Will Change the Way We Live article in TIME magazine (accessed 20/10/13)
Collier, S (16/07/12) 20 illuminating facts about Twitter: 2012 edition article on PR Daily (accessed 20/10/13)
Bowers, S (05/07/13) Twitter UK reports retained profits of less than £100,000 Guardian article (accessed 20/10/13)
Sunday, 13 October 2013
Travel writing - Rush of New York
Taxi here. Taxi there. Taxi everywhere. I arrived at the airport, with a slightly false smile and damaged self esteem, I thought first class was supposed to be good? Tell that to the delays and derogatory mountains of people all scrambling to the beds. Of course, New York would all make up for this right? Well turns out, New York is called 'the city that never sleeps' for a reason, I thought this was positive, until I saw how many taxi drivers really are profane and extremely ill mannered. You see, I found this leaflet; 'You'll enjoy every aspect of this magnificent city. The Statue of Liberty was originally French, and the Empire State building is 443 metres tall, so maybe YOU can tell us how the weather really is up there!" This sounded promising to me.
First port of call was of course the Statue of Liberty, the original French monument sounded perfect for me. I love history, and all things French! Turns out, this place is just a magnet for tacky souvenirs and annoying tourists throwing their cameras in people's faces. I mean, how many angles of something can you take a picture of? Would have been nice to see the statue without some form of body part in the way.
Next place was the Empire State building, which I had even higher hopes for. I didn't even get to it before all these police cars and ambulances were flying past, like some sort of natural disaster had happened. I got closer, and saw a minuscule figure at the top, finally something exciting! Not the good kind of exciting, of course. So, they got this person down and I got a chance to get to the top - not something worth waiting for! The experience proved to be a disappointing waste of time, all I've had is tourists clinging to me for a picture, taxis screeching into my ear with a brain melting force, and a view of the city, which wasn't the highlight. The highlight you ask? Going home!
First port of call was of course the Statue of Liberty, the original French monument sounded perfect for me. I love history, and all things French! Turns out, this place is just a magnet for tacky souvenirs and annoying tourists throwing their cameras in people's faces. I mean, how many angles of something can you take a picture of? Would have been nice to see the statue without some form of body part in the way.
Next place was the Empire State building, which I had even higher hopes for. I didn't even get to it before all these police cars and ambulances were flying past, like some sort of natural disaster had happened. I got closer, and saw a minuscule figure at the top, finally something exciting! Not the good kind of exciting, of course. So, they got this person down and I got a chance to get to the top - not something worth waiting for! The experience proved to be a disappointing waste of time, all I've had is tourists clinging to me for a picture, taxis screeching into my ear with a brain melting force, and a view of the city, which wasn't the highlight. The highlight you ask? Going home!
Friday, 4 October 2013
Monologue
(Geoffrey is sat at home in the bedroom, he is sat in the armchair with a glass of wine)
I'm bored. I've tried so hard to satisfy Susan, but the most attention I get is from Mrs Smith from the shop down the road. I get the same food everyday and as much i'd like to, shall I say, spice up our life in the bedroom, she has none of it. She's not happy and neither am I. I want her to be involved in my spirituality, I want her to be involved with my status and I want her to be involved in my popularity. I do well in my job and everything I can to please both Susan and God - what if she's bored too? What if she doesn't understand mine and God's role in the community? Maybe I need to help her find God. She's left me no choice..
I met Mrs Belcher last night. She came over to discuss the Winter fete next month, and wanted to add a religious aspect to it. I'm delighted the people here are so into religion, except Susan of course. Mrs Belcher looked ravishing, wearing her pearl earrings which lit up her face, and her angelic blonde hair. Things got too far, and we had a little tiff. I feel so ashamed, but Susan looks so bored and displeased recently, and I am to, this is why i'm hoping to meet with this fine lady tomorrow eve. I hope God forgives me.
She should feel lucky. It's not my fault she's not appreciating my importance here, because I am of course the most essential ingredient to our community. I don't care if she's bored, I have loads of other ladies falling at my feet, I don't know how anyone could not like me.
I'm bored. I've tried so hard to satisfy Susan, but the most attention I get is from Mrs Smith from the shop down the road. I get the same food everyday and as much i'd like to, shall I say, spice up our life in the bedroom, she has none of it. She's not happy and neither am I. I want her to be involved in my spirituality, I want her to be involved with my status and I want her to be involved in my popularity. I do well in my job and everything I can to please both Susan and God - what if she's bored too? What if she doesn't understand mine and God's role in the community? Maybe I need to help her find God. She's left me no choice..
I met Mrs Belcher last night. She came over to discuss the Winter fete next month, and wanted to add a religious aspect to it. I'm delighted the people here are so into religion, except Susan of course. Mrs Belcher looked ravishing, wearing her pearl earrings which lit up her face, and her angelic blonde hair. Things got too far, and we had a little tiff. I feel so ashamed, but Susan looks so bored and displeased recently, and I am to, this is why i'm hoping to meet with this fine lady tomorrow eve. I hope God forgives me.
She should feel lucky. It's not my fault she's not appreciating my importance here, because I am of course the most essential ingredient to our community. I don't care if she's bored, I have loads of other ladies falling at my feet, I don't know how anyone could not like me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)