opinionated article - occupation

Don’t be a bore at the dinner table!

Should we be bringing the work language into the household? It is a different environment to working facilities and shouldn’t be brought back as the people around you wouldn’t know what it is about unless they do the same job.

When your family member or friends talk about their day at work, most people are interested as they care about them and how they are getting on at work- whether they have had a bad day or not. The amount of conversation between the two (or more) people can be small talk ranging from a conversation about the whole day, start to finish. This is ok, right? This is normal. But when you drag the terminology from the workplace into an everyday conversation to people who don’t know that much about it, they can lose interest and get lost in the conversation.

In the working environment, people tend to use phatic tokens – research which was done by Labov. The use of self-orientated tokens in the work environment suggests that the conversation has one person with a higher status job title such as making a tool within engineering. They might also use neutral tokens as they both know what they mean within the workplace. This is fine. This doesn’t require any more explaining to people not within that job ad they already know the meaning. However, if you were to explain this jargon to me outside of the work place then I wouldn’t have a clue. Milling, Vernier, height gauge- what’s that?

Some of the tools and equipment which are used in a work environment, such as an engineering company, might have different terminology compared to someone working in a hospital. When at the dinner table discussing their days, people might lose interest in the conversation because they don’t know what they mean themselves. ‘I spent all day making a plumb bob’. Excuse me? What’s that? While on the topic of conversation people might be zoning out the conversation as it might get boring for them because they work in a different environment and are still unsure on what they mean. They might take an interest but not in depth about the whole industry.

However, within the conversation people might use Giles CAT theory which he researched about how spoken language affects your voice within the workplace. Because they might be talking to friends and family about their job, they seem friendlier and comfortable to talk about it. Maybe it’s because they take an interest or just want to find out. Therefore, by them being comfortable they can be open about it. Within your job you can also diverge your language to colleagues- by changing your accent and dialect slightly to suit them. This could also be done to seem like a better teammate. Within work you might also converge as you could be comfortable around them without seeming different to others and not want to be different from the crowd. This way at work everyone can get on better and also have banter as well as being serious for tools and equipment.

accent article- with theories

Audience: people who read the guardian and have an interest in everyones accents


                                Does accent have anything to do with your own socialect?

 

Many people associate the English language being ‘posh’ or ‘well-spoken’ when in fact only a small percentage of the country does so. Across the UK accents can sometimes change when people move around or when they are with different people.

Some people’s accents can be similar to their families as they might be influenced by their language choice because they live in the same house. This would be different if they are with other people such as close friends. You wouldn’t talk the latest slang to your family would you? Well… Unless they are up to date with the trend. At interviews, people tend to change their accent and dialect to persuade and encourage the interviewer that they are right for the job. At job interviews people might use this technique because of covert prestige which is the idea of changing your accent because it is ‘bad’. This then makes them more suited for the job as they think where they come from might have some low hope. People’s voice also tend to also change when they use the phone as they could be answering to someone who they have never met e.g. a teacher therefore they would be converging their language. Milroy’s Belfast study indicates that women talk differently when with different social groups. This means that there overall accent is weaker than men. It shows that women can speak how they are if they are travelling across the country, seeing family and even in a work environment and still have a small accent but not as recognised. This then creates dialect levelling.

When people are with their friends, dialect is changing as there could be more slang, banter and more influences. The media and the social group that you are in have a big impact on how every person’s sociolect/dialect is. This is because of the celebrity influences and also who you hang around with. Discourse communities make you feel like there isn’t much accent or dialect change until you are with other people such as your family. However when people meet new friends such as in school they might converge to make themselves sound friendlier but also close friends might also take the mick out of each other and then diverge their language. Cheshire’s reading study links as when in a social situation boys tend to use more non- standard forms compared to girls. This could be down to group pressure but also their own background. Milroy’s Belfast study also links as men have a closed network meaning they talk the same to everyone making their accent stand out more. Men tend to keep to the same group compared to women who like to be friends with multiple groups therefore weakening their accent.

Many people’s accents and dialect also change when people go abroad or move somewhere else in the country. For example if someone from Bristol went to University to Birmingham they could pick up some dialect and maybe accent if they are staying there for a while. This also links into dialect levelling as people could pick up dialect and it not change their accent therefore making all the accents merge into one. As a discourse community people tend to pick up more and be influenced to use it. When meeting new people, they could recognise where you come from by your accent. Gile’s theory suggests that rural accents are more trustworthy therefore people could find you more reliable and friendlier whereas RP is more convincing. Eckert’s theory also suggests that people using non-standard forms are the ones who are ‘likely to fail’ as people who use RP are considered ‘intelligent’.

Ed Miliband is a well-known politician who is considered intelligent and uses RP. This all changed when he met Russel Brand. The politician changed his accent and dialect to suit Russel’s as he probably felt more comfortable around him making his accent slip into Russel’s ‘infamous mockney’. Could he be doing this to be more influenced by the public? Y changing words such as ‘yes’ to ‘yeah’ and ‘aren’t’ to ‘aint’ suggests that he is informal and started picking up Russel’s idiolect. Glottal stops were also enforced when speaking making Ed’s own idiolect stand out too. Ed is not the first politician to change his accent/dialect as Margret Thatcher did the same to sound more convincing to the public. This figure of ‘prestige’ shows that everyday people have to change their way of speaking just so they are taken seriously nowadays.

gender blog entry- with theories

Audience: regular Guardian readers but also people with some interested in gender equality

In modern day it is said that gender equality has been cut down a lot since the recent years. However, is this really the case? We live in a friendly community where people are not badly discriminated against gender apart from some women who experience sexism on a daily basis? Is this really the case when men and women should have equal rights and opportunities in the world?
Men don’t seem to be getting the same level of sexism on a daily basis so… are the issues changing?

Theorist robin Lakoff suggested many ideas how men and women are treated and communicated differently. If this is put into modern day some of these could ‘normal’ for some people who have experienced sexism on a daily basis. It also gives the impression that language is changing as society grows. Women are stereotypically the ones who deal with sexism which means that men are the ‘powerful’ ones saying it. This indicates that the men are more direct and straight to the point as they don’t think before they say which is from Lakoffs findings. Men tend to tell more jokes and have a better sense of humour too which makes them more dominant to women. It also means that males don’t care about how they say it as they also use non-standard form when in a social situation. This however makes the female race seem weaker and that they can be easily interrupted. This could be because women use polite forms and tag questions such as ‘isn’t it?’ which softens the conversation to make other people feel included or like they need to listen. It would make it easier for men to ‘pick on’ women due to the easy target of polite forms.

Margret Thatcher was the first female Prime Minister in the UK and has been the only one since. As she had power, and also being the first women to do so, it made her more influential to the general public. However, because she had to compete with the male audience she felt like she had to lower her voice just so she could feel accepted. This is why she took lessons to change her speech just so she could present the ‘male’ figure to society. Could she have done this to be as powerful as men? Or because she lived in a world where men were seen as the more confident and firm in what they believe in which Zimmerman and Wests theory didn’t denote? Zimmerman and Wests’ theory indicates that men are the more powerful out of the sexes. This is because they had research on interruptions within a college which said that men interrupted the conversation 46 times compared to women who did twice. So if Margret Thatcher was publicly speaking to a mix sex audience with no lower tone, would she have still got the attention she did?

Another example of a female who wasn’t treated equally was Jennifer Lawrence. She co-stared with male actors and earned more money than she did which was leaked. Some news magazines seen Jennifer’s option on the situation and said that she was yelling at the fact she earned less when she wrote she gave her option in a ‘clear and no bullshit way with no aggression’. Does the public feel like women are weaker and don’t deserve the same amount of pay? Or were the audience surprised that a successful celebrity was complaining about something without knowing that she had a voice? It is strange that the public found it shocking that a women had expressed her views about something when if it was from a male perspective people wouldn’t think much of it and that women are ‘complaining again’. Women are generally meant to use polite forms and emphatic language such as ‘so’ which creates a sweet, loving woman image as Lakoffs theory suggest as suppose to a direct and clear expression in which men are supposed to use.  It overall suggests that men think that they are better than anyone else.

We live in a world where society can change day to day, hour by hour on sexism. Stories and everyday sexism can always change regarding who the person/ people are. Do we live in a world where men are taking over society and becoming more dominant weakening women’s potential? Or do we live in a world where women’s opinions and opportunities make them less equal to men? Or do we live in a world where men and women should be treated equally regarding rights or equal amount of pay and not be surprised when either sex’s voice has to be heard?

Gender Speech - using theories

Audience: in a meeting staff room at middle class- people debating how different each other are regarding titles. 

 

As soon as we reach primary school, why is every child given a title such as ‘Miss’? Why should they be given a role at that age when they don’t understand the world and responsibilities yet? Why should there be one title for an ‘unmarried woman’ and only one for a man? Titles are something you give someone if you are getting married or have a degree such as Professor. Even then the roles are unmarked. Why are men and women titles differently when they both could allocate the same role in the same job?

When calling a man ‘Mr’ we presume that they are married however when we call a woman ‘Miss’ we assume she isn’t married and is single. By calling someone miss it gives the impression that they are still young as many young teenage girls are called miss when they receive letters or apply for jobs. This also gives the impression that they are weaker than being a ‘Mrs’. Women who are titled as ‘Mrs’ give the impression that they have a partner and therefore married. It also sounds grown up and sophisticated. Zimmerman and Wests theory indicates that men have more power over women and therefore when they are married she now has power as she is ‘apart of him’ and becomes a Mrs. However, other titles such as Doctor and Professor are unmarked as it is gender neutral. Having gender neutral titles indicates that the role is shared and there shouldn’t be a desired authority which states who is ‘higher’ in that role. By having roles like that it indicates that no one is superior to the other and the job is equal.

Men are stereotypically associated with having more power compared to women. This could be down to the one title of Mr compared to women who can have three- Miss, Mrs and Ms. By a man having a Mrs by his side it indicates that he has power over her as she has taken the role of his last name with Mrs. Zimmerman and Wests theory agrees as men are the more powerful ones in gender as they tend to interrupt more than women making them more superior. This could also be why men are known for being the ‘man of the house’ because they like to own everything and be direct compared to women who can be hesitant while using polite forms as Lakoff said in her theory. Because men have the power they tend to not listen to women more and interrupt them. This contradicts Beatties theory as his theory indicates that men and women are equal therefore there should be no higher roles when it comes to two people. With this being said men should be equal and just as important as their wife (and if so husband) and also have the same level of power regarding interruptions. However, same sex couples have the same allocated titles. This shows no power as both of the roles are equal.

Within the work environment there are many people with different titles such as Mrs, Miss, Mr and Sir. They all do the same job but are they still equal? When people come to a job interview and present themselves as Miss, people could associate them with being weaker and use intensifiers and emphatic language. This makes them sound weaker than the males and could be paid less. The title also tells the interviewers or colleagues that they might not have the same experience as a ‘Mrs’. By women using empty adjectives and the lack of humour, they might weaken themselves. Lakoffs theory indicates that women tend to do this compared to the males as they are more direct and have better sense of humour. This could mean that men are more outgoing and therefore earned the title of Mr. This shows power as they have worked hard for themselves but also as they are treated as the ‘norm’ in the sexes. So how come men are the ‘norm’ and are supposably paid more? With men being more direct shows they know what they are talking about and have ideas but in Lakoffs theory it indicates that they swear more and also interrupt more. Would you want this man working in your environment? How come men can get some work done and slack off by using covert prestige towards fellow work colleagues but women can work hard by using empty adjectives and get paid less? The titles ruin the modern life in how everyone is treated and respected at work.