Rhetoric
Rhetoric
This article points out that rhetoric is not only limited to politicians, but is used in our everyday lives whether we think about it or not. We use rhetoric in the workplace, parents use it to persuade their children to brush their teeth and we use it to try and persuade our peers. However, rhetoric has come to be seen as an almost 'dirty' word, associated with politicians and law courts and the mass persuasion of the population. It is true that politicians are most explicit in their rhetoric, as a democracy dictates that you govern the country by "having an argument rather than a fight." and therefore words are a politicians best weapon against his or her opposition.
Thursday, 22 January 2015
Wednesday, 21 January 2015
EMM
Children's Language
Child Language Acquisition - early language development over 18 months
Makes interesting points about context from the holophrastic stage all the way up to telegraphic. During the holophrastic stage the context is important in understanding what the child wants to convey in their one-word utterance. The example given is "goggie" when looking at a dog and this could have a number of meanings: for example "oh look there is a dog" or "look at what that dog is doing". The context of the situation is important in understanding the meaning of the utterance.
An example given of the telegraphic stage is "Where man gone" which is the correct formulation of a question but with the removal of so-called 'non-essential' parts (auxiliary verb: has and determiner: the). The context of this is that a fisherman that has been within sight for the past few days has moved. This is an example of children asking questions to gain more information about the world around them; once children have grasped the question structure they are able to find out a lot more about their surroundings.
The article also illustrates over-generalisation of verbs, such as "fall". The child (Stan) says "my head falled off". As fall is an irregular verb with the simple past tense being "fell", Stan has over-generalised that all past tense words end with -ed. This isn't a bad thing, as it shows Stan has a grasp of the tenses and the verbs place within a clause.
Language Change
Prescriptivism in language
"To boldly go where no man has gone before"
Prescriptivists consider this a heinous crime as the infinitive "to go" has been split. To those who subscribe to prescriptivist theories, this is grammatically incorrect, as the space between "to" and "go" is in fact an illusion. As Latin was once the model language, and prescriptivists still perceive it to be the height of linguistic excellence, and infinitive verbs in Latin came as one unit, for example "amare" which means 'to love'. Prescriptivists would say that as Latin didn't allow words to be placed int he middle of an infinitive, English shouldn't either. They would prefer the phrase "to go boldly".
Descriptivists however, would say that "to boldly go" conveys a much clearer meaning to the reader/listener.
Child Language Acquisition - early language development over 18 months
Makes interesting points about context from the holophrastic stage all the way up to telegraphic. During the holophrastic stage the context is important in understanding what the child wants to convey in their one-word utterance. The example given is "goggie" when looking at a dog and this could have a number of meanings: for example "oh look there is a dog" or "look at what that dog is doing". The context of the situation is important in understanding the meaning of the utterance.
An example given of the telegraphic stage is "Where man gone" which is the correct formulation of a question but with the removal of so-called 'non-essential' parts (auxiliary verb: has and determiner: the). The context of this is that a fisherman that has been within sight for the past few days has moved. This is an example of children asking questions to gain more information about the world around them; once children have grasped the question structure they are able to find out a lot more about their surroundings.
The article also illustrates over-generalisation of verbs, such as "fall". The child (Stan) says "my head falled off". As fall is an irregular verb with the simple past tense being "fell", Stan has over-generalised that all past tense words end with -ed. This isn't a bad thing, as it shows Stan has a grasp of the tenses and the verbs place within a clause.
Language Change
Prescriptivism in language
"To boldly go where no man has gone before"
Prescriptivists consider this a heinous crime as the infinitive "to go" has been split. To those who subscribe to prescriptivist theories, this is grammatically incorrect, as the space between "to" and "go" is in fact an illusion. As Latin was once the model language, and prescriptivists still perceive it to be the height of linguistic excellence, and infinitive verbs in Latin came as one unit, for example "amare" which means 'to love'. Prescriptivists would say that as Latin didn't allow words to be placed int he middle of an infinitive, English shouldn't either. They would prefer the phrase "to go boldly".
Descriptivists however, would say that "to boldly go" conveys a much clearer meaning to the reader/listener.
Thursday, 19 June 2014
Star Wars according to a three year old
There is lots of vague language used such as "kinda", which could perhaps suggest that the child is not completely sure of what she is saying but also perhaps that she is worried about what she is expected to say and is worried about saying the wrong thing. There is also lots of repetition, such as the repetition of "well" at the start as the little girl thinks about how she is going to start what she is saying. It takes children a bit longer to gather their thoughts, which could be shown by the number of long pauses in the speech. It could also show distraction, like the little girl is paying a lot of attention to the person (presumably a parent) holding the camera. Informal language is used, because she is a child such as "guy". She also uses ellipses such as "ya" replacing the "-ou" of "you". This is also a suggestion of her accent as she is American.
There are some made up/mis-pronounced words used, such as "blowded" and "blowed" instead of "blown". This is typically of children that are developing their use of language and haven't quite grasped the correct pronunciation of words.
There are some made up/mis-pronounced words used, such as "blowded" and "blowed" instead of "blown". This is typically of children that are developing their use of language and haven't quite grasped the correct pronunciation of words.
Thursday, 12 June 2014
Game Of Thrones text
Our group chose this text because the majority of us like the series.
There is a clear struggle for power between the two males, as they both want control of the conversation and the situation. Both believe that they have the right to the other's respect and obedience. Deborah Tannen suggested that men engage in 'report talk'- talk that establishes status and power and that is clear in this text. Stannis (the 'king') interrupts Jon (the Commander) with a sarcastic comment: "The boy commander agrees. How fortunate." which shows his disdain for Jon. The use of the word "boy" also tried to establish power, with the fact that Stannis is older than Jon and implicitly wiser. It sis also used as a derogatory term- Jon being a "boy" means that he is not capable of holding the position he has (Commander of the Night's Watch) and implies that he is a child who should do what he is told.
At the beginning of the text, Stannis speaks in terms of what he can do for Jon: "I offered you a name." which implies that Stannis is doing Jon a favour and that Jon should have the respect to accept the 'King's' kindness. This puts Stannis in a position of power over Jon, as it makes it seem like Jon is being unreasonable and stubborn and that Stannis is the 'good guy'.
Both men are represented as powerful, as they are in positions of power. However, Stannis believes that he has influence over Jon, whereas Jon believes that the position he holds is irrelevant and separate from Stannis' quest for the throne. Stannis uses the personal pronoun "my" when referring to his soldiers, he wants it known that his men are his, and that he will not be 'donating' any to the Night's Watch.
Jon refers to Stannis as "Sire" throughout, out of respect. However, Stannis does not offer the same politeness to Jon. This could show that Jon is actually the more powerful participant in the conversation, as he is so sure of himself and his stance that he does not feel the need to disrespect Stannis to garner his grudging respect.
Wednesday, 19 March 2014
Pantene Advert
The advert is suggesting that men and women can use the same language and do the same thing, yet be seen completely differently for it. For example, as shown in the advert, a man and a woman could be making the same speech, about the same issue yet men would be seen as pursuading the audience but a female speaker would be 'pushing' her views onto the audience. I also think that this relates into the wider roles in society and the roles women are expected traditionally to play- mother and carer, always there for her family whereas a man is expected to be the provider, to work hard but is also not expected to be as hands on with his family. I think these expectations are outdated, but even when the times change is takes a while for society, and the language it uses, to catch up.
Robin Lakoff's research
Robin Lakoff's research
Robin Lakoff suggested that in conversation, women are much more afraid of imposing than men. For example, women often used super polite forms such as "If you don't mind", which rather than purely just acting as a politeness feature suggests that women are almost afraid of using the imperative. This is also shown through the female use of implications; "it's cold in here, isn't it?" instead of "shut the window" and the use of indirect speech such as "I'm really thirsty" rather than "I need a drink". Women also tend to apologise before making a statement as if they feel that their opinion is less valid. However, this could also suggest that women are more aware of the fact that what they are saying could offend someone than men are. Women use tag questions more than men- they want feedback on their utterances; again this stops them feeling like they're imposing- if they say "I'm coming with you, all right?" rather than "I'm coming with you." it allows the person they're speaking to to respond and give feedback to the female. Women have also been observed raising the pitch of their voice at the end of a sentence (much like an Australian accent) to turn statements into questions, and this is much for the same reason as tag questions. Lakoff also argued that women joke less and are less likely to understand jokes that males make and perhaps the fact that males do use a different kind of language (especially younger males) than women adds to this. It could also explain the fact that women seem to contribute less in mixed-group conversations, although Lakoff explained this as women being less sure of themselves. In relation to male/female language use, Lakoff showed that men are less likely to use 'empty adjectives' such as "adorable" or "lovely" than women are, as men feel emasculated by the fact they are seen as typically female words.Women have also been shown to want complete control over minute aspects of language. For example, rather than saying "blue-purple" they would say "violet".
Robin Lakoff suggested that in conversation, women are much more afraid of imposing than men. For example, women often used super polite forms such as "If you don't mind", which rather than purely just acting as a politeness feature suggests that women are almost afraid of using the imperative. This is also shown through the female use of implications; "it's cold in here, isn't it?" instead of "shut the window" and the use of indirect speech such as "I'm really thirsty" rather than "I need a drink". Women also tend to apologise before making a statement as if they feel that their opinion is less valid. However, this could also suggest that women are more aware of the fact that what they are saying could offend someone than men are. Women use tag questions more than men- they want feedback on their utterances; again this stops them feeling like they're imposing- if they say "I'm coming with you, all right?" rather than "I'm coming with you." it allows the person they're speaking to to respond and give feedback to the female. Women have also been observed raising the pitch of their voice at the end of a sentence (much like an Australian accent) to turn statements into questions, and this is much for the same reason as tag questions. Lakoff also argued that women joke less and are less likely to understand jokes that males make and perhaps the fact that males do use a different kind of language (especially younger males) than women adds to this. It could also explain the fact that women seem to contribute less in mixed-group conversations, although Lakoff explained this as women being less sure of themselves. In relation to male/female language use, Lakoff showed that men are less likely to use 'empty adjectives' such as "adorable" or "lovely" than women are, as men feel emasculated by the fact they are seen as typically female words.Women have also been shown to want complete control over minute aspects of language. For example, rather than saying "blue-purple" they would say "violet".
Peter Trudgill's Norwich Research
Peter Trudgill's Norwich Research
Peter Trudgill's research focused on separating people by sex and also by social class. He asked people to speak in a variety of different situations and to read a section of text out loud. This section contained words where the speaker would make a choice about how they pronounced them, for example '-ing' words. Trudgill noted that women were more careful in their pronunciation, trying to pronounce the 'g' at the end of '-ing' whereas men were more likely to drop the 'g' and pronounce the ending '-in'. He also noted that women of all classes tended to do this, whereas mainly men of lower classes dropped the 'g' sound. He said that this showed that women aimed to use forms of 'standard' or 'prestigious' speech, whereas men were likely to do the opposite of this in order to appear more down-to-earth.
Trudgill also noted that, when asked, women overestimated the amount of times they used the 'high prestige' form, whereas men did the opposite- claiming to use the low prestige form more often.
This illustrates that women tended towards higher social aspirations- ignoring their proposed social class. They also tended to hyper-pronounce words- over pronouncing that parts of a word that they thought would make them seem like they were of a higher social class. This was less evident in men.
This research took place in the 1970's and it has been suggested that women were more likely to aim higher socially by using speech than men because men had other ways to gain prestige- such as work. At the time it was suggested that over the years this would change as it became more socially acceptable to have 'career women' and that women would find other ways of gaining prestige.
Peter Trudgill's research focused on separating people by sex and also by social class. He asked people to speak in a variety of different situations and to read a section of text out loud. This section contained words where the speaker would make a choice about how they pronounced them, for example '-ing' words. Trudgill noted that women were more careful in their pronunciation, trying to pronounce the 'g' at the end of '-ing' whereas men were more likely to drop the 'g' and pronounce the ending '-in'. He also noted that women of all classes tended to do this, whereas mainly men of lower classes dropped the 'g' sound. He said that this showed that women aimed to use forms of 'standard' or 'prestigious' speech, whereas men were likely to do the opposite of this in order to appear more down-to-earth.
Trudgill also noted that, when asked, women overestimated the amount of times they used the 'high prestige' form, whereas men did the opposite- claiming to use the low prestige form more often.
This illustrates that women tended towards higher social aspirations- ignoring their proposed social class. They also tended to hyper-pronounce words- over pronouncing that parts of a word that they thought would make them seem like they were of a higher social class. This was less evident in men.
This research took place in the 1970's and it has been suggested that women were more likely to aim higher socially by using speech than men because men had other ways to gain prestige- such as work. At the time it was suggested that over the years this would change as it became more socially acceptable to have 'career women' and that women would find other ways of gaining prestige.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)