Hi everyone,
Again, have a look at how these example paragraphs are worded to meet the demands of a POWER question...
So, here are some example paragraphs:
You will already have done 2 on the stimulus text. Here are another 2!
P3 - An additional example of a powerful advert which I have studied is an extremely emotive appeal by 'Pancreatic Cancer Action'. Within this advert, power is exerted through the use of direct speech in the form of the controversial declarative, 'I wish I had breast cancer.' By juxtaposing the emotive verb 'wish' with the common noun 'cancer', the author creates a sense of shock and intrigue in the reader, pressuring them to read on to find an explanation for this shocking admission. These words would be received particularly alarmingly by a modern audience who are frequently bombarded with appeals to aid cancer charities. Perhaps this is an attempt to stand out from other similar appeals. Power is also exerted through synthetic personalisation by ensuring the quote appears to be from a real person 'Kerry, 24'. The inclusion of her age would shock the audience and make them feel vulnerable, increasing the likelihood they might want to help. By using the adverb 'today, the author is able to exaggerate the seriousness of the problem faced by many, putting it into context. Additionally, the use of superlative phrases 'biggest cancer killer' and 'lowest survival rate', the disease is inflated hyperbolically to make it seem more of a threat, increasing peoples' interest in the topic. The use of the abstract noun 'action' in the title of the charity contrasts with the more passive 'research' in the title of the UKs biggest cancer charity, perhaps making the reader more likely to donate due to the fact they may think their money will be spent fighting the disease rather than simply researching.
P4 - In a hugely contrasting advert for Maybelline's 'Colossal Spider Effect' mascara, the advert exerts power by targeting a specific demographic of insecure young women in order to use language for maximum effect. Utilising an imperative tone throughout, the advert leads with the command 'open your eyes', the idiom simultaneously implying that the product will increase the size of your eyes, whilst also seemingly implying that the reader is naïve if they do not yet use the product, which may encourage them to buy it. Later in the advert, the effect of the product is billed as 'Boldly Sculpted Lashes'. Here, the adverb 'boldly' implies that a person can improve their shy personality by using the product, and the adjective 'sculpted' seems to suggest that it is preferable to appear different to how you do naturally, implying that readers should always see themselves as a work in progress. The title of the product 'colossal spider' is seemingly designed to polarise the target demographic as the adjective 'colossal' and noun 'spider' sound eye-catching and over-the-top simultaneously. Then result of this may be that more shy readers see the product as a way to improve themselves, and more bold readers may feel pressured into using it to be on trend.
Wednesday, 18 March 2020
TASK
Read over the last two posts and see how each set of example paragraphs are CLEARLY worded to answer either a POWER or a SITUATION question. If you are not doing that, you're going to lose A LOT of marks.
Have a look over the essay you have just sent me and check...
1. That you have not referenced POWER too much.
2. That you are directly answering the SITUATION question you were set through your expression.
1B - SITUATION KEYWORDING
Now have a look at how to do the same for a SITUATION essay...
Quotes/case studies mentioned can be found beneath the essay...
ESSAY
Sarah Thorne - (applies to non-PC comedy) 'Distasteful uses of language are tempered by the understanding that we would not act that way [in real life]' <- This is paraphrased but is fine to use as long as you write it like this. It is basically her way of saying that stand up comedians will say offensive things knowing that it will be taken in humour and not as their real thoughts.
Steven Pinker (Harvard Professor) - 'Semantics is about the relation of words to thoughts, but it also about the relation of words to other human concerns'
Steven Pinker - Euphemism treadmill (No need to remember a quote, just remember what it is and a few examples of words which have gone through this process).
Ricky Gervais:
Quotes/case studies mentioned can be found beneath the essay...
ESSAY
Using this extract as a starting point, discuss how changing standards or attitudes can affect the language people use.
(Look at all the highlighted quotes which show the argument being linked to the key words of the question)
Within the extract, it is clear that Mitchell’s attitude to holocaust-related language is different to the Israeli couple who complained about the actions documented in the passage. Whereas the couple use an intensifier to stress the fact that they are descended the ‘very’ people who Hitler was trying to exterminate, Mitchell seems to believe that their reaction is still a little bit over the top. Mitchell draws attention to the idea that the exclamative ‘Heil Hitler!’ was seen by the couple as an example of the abstract noun ‘anti-semitism’, but his arguably more modern values lead him to claim, ‘I just don’t think that’s true’. Here, the verb ‘think’ and adjective ‘true’ are used to suggest that he is not criticising the couple for being offended, but that he feels they have taken the actions of the young couple the wrong way. The use of the verb and noun in the phrase ‘doing the moustache’ is significant as it shows that Mitchell believes that we should be a bit more accepting of the ‘offensive’ language used by the pranksters due to the context in which it was used.
Mitchell is clearly a little bit torn by the use of language surrounding the exhibit, however. Near the start of the article, he questions whether or not the abstract noun ‘attraction’ is appropriate when discussing something that has caused such offense. When Mitchell juxtaposes the noun ‘museum’ and ‘racket’ as alternatives, he clearly is attempting to display that there is something culturally unacceptable about applying such positive lexis to an exhibition which features such a controversial figure as Hitler. Despite having far more liberal attitudes than the couple who made the complaint, he later shows discomfort at the whole idea by using the sardonic verb ‘frolicking’ to describe the offenders’’ actions, implying that they have acted inappropriately.
Steven Pinker, a professor from Harvard university, had a lot to say about how people’s attitudes towards language can affect what people say. Pinker said that, ‘semantics is about the relation of words to other human concerns’. Here, Pinker seems to be trying to influence what people think about the actual meaning of a word. By using the noun ‘semantics’ coupled with the plural noun phrase’ human concerns’, Pinker tries to explain that a word can be very sensitive in its use if it is likely to make certain members of the population feel a certain way based on contextual suffering associated with that word, such as words linked to slavery or oppression.
Pinker’s ideas can be applied to the offensive taboo noun ‘n***er’ which is often seen by many as one of the most offensive words in the English language. The word itself actually originated from the Portuguese for the word ‘black’ and so, from a purely semantic perspective, it may seem unusual that it carries so much more offense than the politically correct English term ‘black’. However, we should also consider Pinker’s ideas of the ‘euphemism treadmill’ which states that words that are used to denote minority groups will usually become offensive over time due to their use in context. This word has become very offensive due to the fact that it was first used during the transatlantic slave trade and so its use is often associated with the oppression of racial minorities. However, in more recent times, semantic reclamation has occurred which has resulted in the noun being used in more positive contexts. Rap group NWA (N**gaz with attitude) use a colloquial version of the plural noun, along with the preposition ‘with’ and abstract noun ‘attitude’ to suggest that they are happy to adopt the title as a response to the brutality of police in 1990s USA. The abstract noun implies that they are proud to be known as something different to the police, and will fight against the oppression they feel they are suffering.
Another example of semantic reclamation can be seen with the taboo adjective ‘queer’. Originally meaning ‘unusual’, this term first became offensive due to the fact that it implied that homosexuality was different and abnormal. Again, due to the euphemism treadmill, it was quickly seen as totally offensive and unacceptable when applied to gay people. However, in more recent times, the word has been reclaimed such as in the title of the TV show ‘Queer eye for the straight guy’, in which the preposition ‘for’ and adjective ‘straight’ imply that gay fashion sense is a benefit to straight people. This demonstrates a huge change in attitude. More recently, the term has been adopted by LGBT+ activists as the politically correct term for people who are gender fluid. The term ‘genderqueer’ is now used by many activist groups, with ‘pride.com’ claiming it was inspired by ‘the queer movement’s effort to “queer” the normalcy of cisgenderness and heterosexuality’. The unusual use of the verb ‘queer’ juxtaposed with abstract nouns ‘cisgenderness’ and ‘heterosexuality’ are used to show that the term ‘queer’ has been so successfully reclaimed semantically that people now feel they can use it to make the ‘norm’ or straightness seem unusual by comparison.
Similar changing attitudes over time have also had a huge effect on the language used in advertising. In an extract that we studied in class, an advert for women’s shoes from the 1950s featured a woman being physically stood on, with the imperative phrase ‘keep her where she belongs’ accompanying the image. During this patriarchal era, this would have seemed acceptable as the verb ‘keep’ and pronoun ‘her’ clearly address the male partner of the woman, rather than the woman herself, reflecting the accepted norm that the man would have been in charge of a married couple’s finances. Today, this gender expectation would be seen as unacceptable, and now women are expected to be in charge of their own finances and purchases. This change has been largely brought about through the middle part of the twentieth century where the political correctness movement encouraged society to view women as equal to men, in turn changing peoples’ attitudes to a woman’s role in society. The present tense verb ‘belongs’ would also be considered unacceptable by modern standards as it is not seen as politically correct to impose an expectation on a person and where they ‘belong’ simply due to their gender.
Lastly, it is interesting to note that, although the political correctness movement has had a huge effect on the language used in corporate or social settings, the field of comedy seems to be much slower in adapting to the attitude that discrimination is unacceptable. In his recent ‘Humans’ tour, famous comedian Ricky Gervais ridiculed transgender celebrity Caitlin Jenner due to her decision to change from her birth gender. Gervais attempted to derive humour by saying, ‘If you feel you’re a woman, you are…which is fine because I’ve always identified as a chimp’. By using the past participle verb ‘identified’ which is from the semantic field of gender reassignment, and the noun ‘chimp’, Gervais appears to ridicule the idea that Jenner has sincerely been affected by being transgender. It appears that he is mocking the very concept of identifying as something other than the way you are born. In this PC age, many people would see this as offensive and unacceptable due to modern liberal attitudes. However, it is possible that this is simply being said in an ironic way to gain a reaction from the audience, as many comedians do. Sarah Thorne sums this up nicely by saying, ‘Distasteful uses of language are tempered by the understanding that we would not act that way [in real life’. The verb ‘tempered’ suggests that, although the audience would normally see this prejudice as unacceptable, they are happy to laugh at it in the context of comedy because they known that Gervais is a performer, and does not mean what he says.
In conclusion, it is clear that changing attitudes over time have had a huge effect on the language that people see as acceptable. Largely, this has changed the way in which people consider their choices so that they do not offend people. Although, even words which are offensive are sometimes still used if they have gone through the process of semantic reclamation or being used ironically.
QUOTES AND CASE STUDIES...
QUOTES AND CASE STUDIES...
Sarah Thorne - (applies to non-PC comedy) 'Distasteful uses of language are tempered by the understanding that we would not act that way [in real life]' <- This is paraphrased but is fine to use as long as you write it like this. It is basically her way of saying that stand up comedians will say offensive things knowing that it will be taken in humour and not as their real thoughts.
Steven Pinker (Harvard Professor) - 'Semantics is about the relation of words to thoughts, but it also about the relation of words to other human concerns'
Steven Pinker - Euphemism treadmill (No need to remember a quote, just remember what it is and a few examples of words which have gone through this process).
Ricky Gervais:
1B - Example COURTROOM paragraphs
I'm only giving you 2 example paragraphs for legal/courtroom transcripts. You'll have to research others alone.
Here is the imagined question:
'Using the stimulus as a starting point, discuss how legal power can be exerted through language use.'
So - imagine that the first 2 paragraphs have been answered in relation to the stimulus, here is what the next 2 COULD look like...
P3 - Within an extract from the murder case involving ex-athlete Oscar Pistorius, we studied an exchange between a defence barrister and a key witness. Within this exchange, power is exerted by the barrister when he attempts to undermine the witness and make them look less reliable. This is due to the fact that the barrister is probably attempting to defame the witness and prove reasonable doubt over the guilt of Pistorius. At first, 'D' demonstrates upwards convergence (as noted by Giles in his 'Accommodation Theory) by saying to the witness 'let me explain to you what it means...when you testified'. Here, the use of the imperative with the fronted verb 'let', along with the rather patronising verb 'explain' characterises the witness as unintelligent and lacking in legal know-how, which might cast doubt over her reliability in this context. Later, further unreliability is cast upon her when the barrister claims that she made 'no mention of the woman's screaming (1) no mention'. The use of repetition to draw attention to the negated common noun 'no mention', particularly when coupled with a planned unvoiced pause for effect, would accentuate the gap in the witness's version of events, despite her otherwise being trustworthy. This would be classed by Brown and Levinson as a 'face threatening act'. However, a different aspect of face presents itself later in the extract when the barrister protects the negative face of the witness, presumably to encourage compliance from her. We can see this firstly when the barrister repeatedly uses the imperative phrase 'hear me out', which undermines his opwn ego and makes it appear as if he is asking the witness' permission to continue, despite being in a position of power relative to her. He later follows an extremely long sentence with 'and I apologise for that'. Here, the use of the first person singular pronoun and dynamic present tense verb 'I apologise' show that the barrister is deliberately attempting to pander to the negative face needs of the witness so that she will feel more inclined to talk and comply with his wishes.
P4 - In a similar courtroom extract, we examined data where a man named 'Mr Neil' was being interrogated by a barrister having got into a dispute with a neighbour after an incident with a car. Within the extract, we see the barrister attempting to distance himself from the witness in order to elevate his position of power. An example of this, near the start of the extract, is when the barrister uses low frequency lexis such as the noun 'incident', adverb 'previously' and noun 'grudge' to make him sound more educated than the defendant. The barrister subtly mocks the reliability of the defendant by repeating elements of his own words such as 'you can't remember whether [the police] came to see you?'. Here, the contraction 'can't' and dynamic verb 'remember', which would have been said in an incredulous tone, paints a picture of the defendant as unreliable and fanciful, probably causing the jury to discount his evidence. In a similar way to how the barrister in text A appealed to the negative face needs of his witness to encourage compliance, this barrister in this text uses a similar technique by using downwards convergence to speak to him more on his level. On the surface, he appears to sympathise with the defendant, saying, '...the reason there is ill feeling...is that you believe Mr Peterson shopped you to the police.' here, the use of the abstract noun reason, connoting understanding, and the colloquial past participle verb 'shopped' imply that the barrister is attempting to encourage the defendant to cooperate with him as he has started to see things from his point of view. This would make it far more likely that the defendant will say something which will incriminate him.
Now, look at the same paragraphs but annotated...
P3 - Within an extract from the murder case involving ex-athlete Oscar Pistorius, we studied an exchange between a defence barrister and a key witness. Within this exchange, power is exerted (CLEAR SINGPOSTING TO THE OVERALL TOPIC) by the barrister when he attempts to undermine (SPECIFIC TYPE OF POWER IDENTIFIED) the witness and make them look less reliable. This is due to the fact that the barrister is probably attempting to defame the witness and prove reasonable doubt over the guilt of Pistorius. (CLEAR EXPLANATION OF WHAT THE PURPOSE/EFFECT OF THE LANGUAGE IS) At first, 'D' demonstrates upwards convergence (as noted by Giles in his 'Accommodation Theory) (THEORY INCLUDED) by saying to the witness 'let me explain to you what it means...when you testified'. Here, the use of the imperative with the fronted verb 'let', along with the rather patronising verb 'explain' characterises the witness as unintelligent and lacking in legal know-how, which might cast doubt over her reliability in this context. (THOROUGH EXPLANATION OF THE EFFECT OF SPECIFIC WORDS) Later, further unreliability is cast upon her when the barrister claims that she made 'no mention of the woman's screaming (1) no mention'. The use of repetition to draw attention to the negated common noun 'no mention', particularly when coupled with a planned unvoiced pause for effect, would accentuate the gap in the witness's version of events, despite her otherwise being trustworthy. (FURTHER EXPLANATION) This would be classed by Brown and Levinson as a 'face threatening act'. (MORE EMBEDDED THEORY) However, a different aspect of face presents itself later in the extract when the barrister protects the negative face of the witness, presumably to encourage compliance from her. (INTERESTING, SOPHISTICATED POINT - NOT THE OBVIOUS) We can see this firstly when the barrister repeatedly uses the imperative phrase 'hear me out', which undermines his opwn ego and makes it appear as if he is asking the witness' permission to continue, despite being in a position of power relative to her. (DISCUSSION OF POWER IN THE CONTEXT) He later follows an extremely long sentence with 'and I apologise for that'. Here, the use of the first person singular pronoun and dynamic present tense verb 'I apologise' show that the barrister is deliberately attempting to pander to the negative face needs of the witness so that she will feel more inclined to talk and comply with his wishes. (MENTION OF COMPLIANCE LINKS BACK TO THE THEME OF POWER)
And here, look at the mentions/links to power...
P4 - In a similar courtroom extract, we examined data where a man named 'Mr Neil' was being interrogated by a barrister having got into a dispute with a neighbour after an incident with a car. Within the extract, we see the barrister attempting to distance himself from the witness in order to elevate his position of power. An example of this, near the start of the extract, is when the barrister uses low frequency lexis such as the noun 'incident', adverb 'previously' and noun 'grudge' to make him sound more educated than the defendant. The barrister subtly mocks the reliability of the defendant by repeating elements of his own words such as 'you can't remember whether [the police] came to see you?'. Here, the contraction 'can't' and dynamic verb 'remember', which would have been said in an incredulous tone, paints a picture of the defendant as unreliable and fanciful, probably causing the jury to discount his evidence. In a similar way to how the barrister in text A appealed to the negative face needs of his witness to encourage compliance, this barrister in this text uses a similar technique by using downwards convergence to speak to him more on his level. On the surface, he appears to sympathise with the defendant, saying, '...the reason there is ill feeling...is that you believe Mr Peterson shopped you to the police.' here, the use of the abstract noun reason, connoting understanding, and the colloquial past participle verb 'shopped' imply that the barrister is attempting to encourage the defendant to cooperate with him as he has started to see things from his point of view. This would make it far more likely that the defendant will say something which will incriminate him.
Here is the imagined question:
'Using the stimulus as a starting point, discuss how legal power can be exerted through language use.'
So - imagine that the first 2 paragraphs have been answered in relation to the stimulus, here is what the next 2 COULD look like...
P3 - Within an extract from the murder case involving ex-athlete Oscar Pistorius, we studied an exchange between a defence barrister and a key witness. Within this exchange, power is exerted by the barrister when he attempts to undermine the witness and make them look less reliable. This is due to the fact that the barrister is probably attempting to defame the witness and prove reasonable doubt over the guilt of Pistorius. At first, 'D' demonstrates upwards convergence (as noted by Giles in his 'Accommodation Theory) by saying to the witness 'let me explain to you what it means...when you testified'. Here, the use of the imperative with the fronted verb 'let', along with the rather patronising verb 'explain' characterises the witness as unintelligent and lacking in legal know-how, which might cast doubt over her reliability in this context. Later, further unreliability is cast upon her when the barrister claims that she made 'no mention of the woman's screaming (1) no mention'. The use of repetition to draw attention to the negated common noun 'no mention', particularly when coupled with a planned unvoiced pause for effect, would accentuate the gap in the witness's version of events, despite her otherwise being trustworthy. This would be classed by Brown and Levinson as a 'face threatening act'. However, a different aspect of face presents itself later in the extract when the barrister protects the negative face of the witness, presumably to encourage compliance from her. We can see this firstly when the barrister repeatedly uses the imperative phrase 'hear me out', which undermines his opwn ego and makes it appear as if he is asking the witness' permission to continue, despite being in a position of power relative to her. He later follows an extremely long sentence with 'and I apologise for that'. Here, the use of the first person singular pronoun and dynamic present tense verb 'I apologise' show that the barrister is deliberately attempting to pander to the negative face needs of the witness so that she will feel more inclined to talk and comply with his wishes.
P4 - In a similar courtroom extract, we examined data where a man named 'Mr Neil' was being interrogated by a barrister having got into a dispute with a neighbour after an incident with a car. Within the extract, we see the barrister attempting to distance himself from the witness in order to elevate his position of power. An example of this, near the start of the extract, is when the barrister uses low frequency lexis such as the noun 'incident', adverb 'previously' and noun 'grudge' to make him sound more educated than the defendant. The barrister subtly mocks the reliability of the defendant by repeating elements of his own words such as 'you can't remember whether [the police] came to see you?'. Here, the contraction 'can't' and dynamic verb 'remember', which would have been said in an incredulous tone, paints a picture of the defendant as unreliable and fanciful, probably causing the jury to discount his evidence. In a similar way to how the barrister in text A appealed to the negative face needs of his witness to encourage compliance, this barrister in this text uses a similar technique by using downwards convergence to speak to him more on his level. On the surface, he appears to sympathise with the defendant, saying, '...the reason there is ill feeling...is that you believe Mr Peterson shopped you to the police.' here, the use of the abstract noun reason, connoting understanding, and the colloquial past participle verb 'shopped' imply that the barrister is attempting to encourage the defendant to cooperate with him as he has started to see things from his point of view. This would make it far more likely that the defendant will say something which will incriminate him.
Now, look at the same paragraphs but annotated...
P3 - Within an extract from the murder case involving ex-athlete Oscar Pistorius, we studied an exchange between a defence barrister and a key witness. Within this exchange, power is exerted (CLEAR SINGPOSTING TO THE OVERALL TOPIC) by the barrister when he attempts to undermine (SPECIFIC TYPE OF POWER IDENTIFIED) the witness and make them look less reliable. This is due to the fact that the barrister is probably attempting to defame the witness and prove reasonable doubt over the guilt of Pistorius. (CLEAR EXPLANATION OF WHAT THE PURPOSE/EFFECT OF THE LANGUAGE IS) At first, 'D' demonstrates upwards convergence (as noted by Giles in his 'Accommodation Theory) (THEORY INCLUDED) by saying to the witness 'let me explain to you what it means...when you testified'. Here, the use of the imperative with the fronted verb 'let', along with the rather patronising verb 'explain' characterises the witness as unintelligent and lacking in legal know-how, which might cast doubt over her reliability in this context. (THOROUGH EXPLANATION OF THE EFFECT OF SPECIFIC WORDS) Later, further unreliability is cast upon her when the barrister claims that she made 'no mention of the woman's screaming (1) no mention'. The use of repetition to draw attention to the negated common noun 'no mention', particularly when coupled with a planned unvoiced pause for effect, would accentuate the gap in the witness's version of events, despite her otherwise being trustworthy. (FURTHER EXPLANATION) This would be classed by Brown and Levinson as a 'face threatening act'. (MORE EMBEDDED THEORY) However, a different aspect of face presents itself later in the extract when the barrister protects the negative face of the witness, presumably to encourage compliance from her. (INTERESTING, SOPHISTICATED POINT - NOT THE OBVIOUS) We can see this firstly when the barrister repeatedly uses the imperative phrase 'hear me out', which undermines his opwn ego and makes it appear as if he is asking the witness' permission to continue, despite being in a position of power relative to her. (DISCUSSION OF POWER IN THE CONTEXT) He later follows an extremely long sentence with 'and I apologise for that'. Here, the use of the first person singular pronoun and dynamic present tense verb 'I apologise' show that the barrister is deliberately attempting to pander to the negative face needs of the witness so that she will feel more inclined to talk and comply with his wishes. (MENTION OF COMPLIANCE LINKS BACK TO THE THEME OF POWER)
And here, look at the mentions/links to power...
P4 - In a similar courtroom extract, we examined data where a man named 'Mr Neil' was being interrogated by a barrister having got into a dispute with a neighbour after an incident with a car. Within the extract, we see the barrister attempting to distance himself from the witness in order to elevate his position of power. An example of this, near the start of the extract, is when the barrister uses low frequency lexis such as the noun 'incident', adverb 'previously' and noun 'grudge' to make him sound more educated than the defendant. The barrister subtly mocks the reliability of the defendant by repeating elements of his own words such as 'you can't remember whether [the police] came to see you?'. Here, the contraction 'can't' and dynamic verb 'remember', which would have been said in an incredulous tone, paints a picture of the defendant as unreliable and fanciful, probably causing the jury to discount his evidence. In a similar way to how the barrister in text A appealed to the negative face needs of his witness to encourage compliance, this barrister in this text uses a similar technique by using downwards convergence to speak to him more on his level. On the surface, he appears to sympathise with the defendant, saying, '...the reason there is ill feeling...is that you believe Mr Peterson shopped you to the police.' here, the use of the abstract noun reason, connoting understanding, and the colloquial past participle verb 'shopped' imply that the barrister is attempting to encourage the defendant to cooperate with him as he has started to see things from his point of view. This would make it far more likely that the defendant will say something which will incriminate him.
What's going on here today?
Hi everyone,
So, having a flick through some of your responses, it seems like some of you are struggling to signpost the wording of your question to the particular branch of study. Some of you, for example, are talking about POWER almost as the main focus of a SITUATION question.
yes, it's fine to use the same case studies as power, but your explanation of why/how the points are significant needs to be signposted and keyworded to the question.
I'm going to post some example paragraphs for POWER, with a question, and highlight the bits which demonstrate that these are POWER paragraphs. I will then do the same for situation.
It goes without saying you CAN use these ideas in your own revision/exams, so revise them well.
Nick
Monday, 16 March 2020
That's all for now...
I have more stuff to put on for you guys, but I think there's enough for you to revise for one night.
Hopefully see you all very soon.
Keep contacting me via email, keep checking them, and someone let the group chat know the blog has been updated!
Power essay will be with you soon,
Nick
Hopefully see you all very soon.
Keep contacting me via email, keep checking them, and someone let the group chat know the blog has been updated!
Power essay will be with you soon,
Nick
2B - Walkthrough
Really, this is a component which should NOT have you panicking.
You will be given a small set of data from the genre of 21st century English.
This could be from:
SMS
Twitter
Facebook
Snapchat
Instagram
Email
All the questions will ask you to do will be something like 'analyse how the context of this data affects language use in the 21st century'.
You already know ALL of this! You really do. All you have to do is imagine you are explaining EVERYTHING to a 95 year old, and you can't go far wrong (ie, just be prepared to explain what the heck is going on as if you are talking to someone who has never seen a text message or abbreviation in their life.)
Got it?
Key terms:
If you see any of these, you'll need to point them out and explain why and how they are being used. Don't just assume that you only need to mention them once. You might make a point about how a smiley face to a friend shows informality or flirting, whereas you might later make another point about how inappropriate a sad face is when used in a formal situation.
*Abbreviations
*Acronyms
*Initialisms
*Emojis/Emoticons
*Sociolect
*Elliptical expression
*Elision
*Logograms (when a symbol is used to carry meaning, like '+' or '@'
*Hyperlinks
*Hashtags
*Retweets
*Tagged friends
*Mentions
*Like/Dislikes
Again, none of this should scare you. This is the sort of language you use EVERY DAY. You just need to switch your brains on, look at the contexts, and ensure that you are fully explaining WHY these things are happening.
Grouping and Planning
Answering this question really is EASY.
The Sample Assessment material showed 8 SMS messages and expects you to write about 4-5 paragraphs.
Whilst we don't know that YOUR data will feature SMS messages, we can assume it will be a similar length.
So, just try to GROUP the data into about 4-5 paragraphs. Don't just blindly work your way through it one text at a time This won't show off your skills. See if any of the texts/tweets/message have anything in common, and tackle these in the same paragraph.
For example, don't do this:
Paragraph one - discusses sms 1
Paragraph two - discusses sms 2
Paragraph three - discusses sms 3...
Because if you do that, you'll find that you eventualy start repeating yourself.
Instead, do it like this...
Paragraph one - discusses all messages which feature arguments
Paragraph two - discusses all message which are sent in a more formal context
Paragraph three - discusses all messages which are sent by older people
Paragraph four - discusses all texts which are SPAM messages or unwanted messages
Paragraph five - discusses all texts sent between close friends and family
Linking to Context
Follow this formula and you won't go far wrong.
1. Point out a language feature
2. Show a clear example or examples of where we see this in the data
3. Explain why this happens in a general sense - 'Emojis like this are used to express emotion rather than putting things into words which means that word counts are cut down, and there is less chance of messages being misread on an emotional level
4. Explain why this happens in this particular context - 'Within this message, it is particularly important that this 'laughing' emoji has been used, as the recipient is an older individual who may be more inclined to misread the sarcastic tone of the text if the emoji was not used to clarify it.
It is that last point which will ensure you are always linking to context. So, within each message, consider and comment on the following factors:
*How old is the sender/recipient? Is this having any effect on the language used?
*Is there a language/culture barrier between sender and recipient? Any linguistic effect?
*How well do the sender and recipient know each other? Is this affecting anything?
*Is the message informal or formal? Why? How is this shown linguistically?
*How far apart are the sender and recipient? Any linguistic effect?
*Is the message wanted or unwanted? How does this affect the things the sender says?
*SPAM MESSAGES - Remember, SPAM companies will use abbreviations and hyperlinks to keep word counts and costs down. They will also use a whole host of tactics to trick people into following the messages. Point these out when they shows up, and explain what you know about spammers.
*Multimodality - Do any of the messages show signs of CONVERSATIONAL features? Why? Point these out.
ETC ETC ETC.
Do you see the benefit of this??? Essentially, this will guarantee that each PG has a nice specific focus, you won't be repeating yourself, and you should ALWAYS be able to link VERY EASILY to the context of the messages, showing how it is affecting language use.
Nick
You will be given a small set of data from the genre of 21st century English.
This could be from:
SMS
Snapchat
All the questions will ask you to do will be something like 'analyse how the context of this data affects language use in the 21st century'.
You already know ALL of this! You really do. All you have to do is imagine you are explaining EVERYTHING to a 95 year old, and you can't go far wrong (ie, just be prepared to explain what the heck is going on as if you are talking to someone who has never seen a text message or abbreviation in their life.)
Got it?
Key terms:
If you see any of these, you'll need to point them out and explain why and how they are being used. Don't just assume that you only need to mention them once. You might make a point about how a smiley face to a friend shows informality or flirting, whereas you might later make another point about how inappropriate a sad face is when used in a formal situation.
*Abbreviations
*Acronyms
*Initialisms
*Emojis/Emoticons
*Sociolect
*Elliptical expression
*Elision
*Logograms (when a symbol is used to carry meaning, like '+' or '@'
*Hyperlinks
*Hashtags
*Retweets
*Tagged friends
*Mentions
*Like/Dislikes
Again, none of this should scare you. This is the sort of language you use EVERY DAY. You just need to switch your brains on, look at the contexts, and ensure that you are fully explaining WHY these things are happening.
Grouping and Planning
Answering this question really is EASY.
The Sample Assessment material showed 8 SMS messages and expects you to write about 4-5 paragraphs.
Whilst we don't know that YOUR data will feature SMS messages, we can assume it will be a similar length.
So, just try to GROUP the data into about 4-5 paragraphs. Don't just blindly work your way through it one text at a time This won't show off your skills. See if any of the texts/tweets/message have anything in common, and tackle these in the same paragraph.
For example, don't do this:
Paragraph one - discusses sms 1
Paragraph two - discusses sms 2
Paragraph three - discusses sms 3...
Because if you do that, you'll find that you eventualy start repeating yourself.
Instead, do it like this...
Paragraph one - discusses all messages which feature arguments
Paragraph two - discusses all message which are sent in a more formal context
Paragraph three - discusses all messages which are sent by older people
Paragraph four - discusses all texts which are SPAM messages or unwanted messages
Paragraph five - discusses all texts sent between close friends and family
Linking to Context
Follow this formula and you won't go far wrong.
1. Point out a language feature
2. Show a clear example or examples of where we see this in the data
3. Explain why this happens in a general sense - 'Emojis like this are used to express emotion rather than putting things into words which means that word counts are cut down, and there is less chance of messages being misread on an emotional level
4. Explain why this happens in this particular context - 'Within this message, it is particularly important that this 'laughing' emoji has been used, as the recipient is an older individual who may be more inclined to misread the sarcastic tone of the text if the emoji was not used to clarify it.
It is that last point which will ensure you are always linking to context. So, within each message, consider and comment on the following factors:
*How old is the sender/recipient? Is this having any effect on the language used?
*Is there a language/culture barrier between sender and recipient? Any linguistic effect?
*How well do the sender and recipient know each other? Is this affecting anything?
*Is the message informal or formal? Why? How is this shown linguistically?
*How far apart are the sender and recipient? Any linguistic effect?
*Is the message wanted or unwanted? How does this affect the things the sender says?
*SPAM MESSAGES - Remember, SPAM companies will use abbreviations and hyperlinks to keep word counts and costs down. They will also use a whole host of tactics to trick people into following the messages. Point these out when they shows up, and explain what you know about spammers.
*Multimodality - Do any of the messages show signs of CONVERSATIONAL features? Why? Point these out.
ETC ETC ETC.
Do you see the benefit of this??? Essentially, this will guarantee that each PG has a nice specific focus, you won't be repeating yourself, and you should ALWAYS be able to link VERY EASILY to the context of the messages, showing how it is affecting language use.
Nick
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)