language and representation

 Years and Years - Eyes Shut Lyrics (first part of song)

Throw your heart to me
Let it fall and hit the ground
Let it go
Your timing was so wrong
I just want to be found

In this song the band talks about a possible breakup or loss of someone as they would want to be 'found' again. This suggests that they are now lost without them and don't know what to do anyone because they are missing a part of someone or something.  'Throw' demonstrates a metaphor as they gave all they could to them but it was at the wrong time. It also is exaggerated and sounds like it was forced for them to do so. In the second line it also seems like they want the heart to be left on the ground (not only because it was bad timing for them) but also because it sounds like the heart is now worthless and unwanted. 'Your' also states that they are putting all the blame on them when it would of been an equal decision if it was a breakup or one betrayed the other badly. It is also a personal pronoun as they would be directly aiming the whole song at someone. Overall this would make the reader seem sad as it is a slow song anyway but also want to know how bad the lead singer felt after betrayal. It could also make the audience think that something so simple such as love can be broken and hurt at anytime so it must be looked after and not 'hit the ground'.

gender research - hallas absense

Beattie’s challenge to Zimmerman and West

Geoffrey Beattie studied and recorded that within a conversation there were 557 interruptions within 10 hours of discussion. Zimmerman and West recorded 55 interruptions. Beattie also found that men and women interrupt an equal amount- an average of 34.1 men and 33.8 women. This made men interrupt more however not as much as Zimmerman and West shown.

John Grey's popular book 'Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus'

In the book, men and women differ in the language they use when communicating. The main points in the book and theories are:

• Language and communication matter more to women than men.
• Women are more verbally skilled than men
• Men focus about getting things done in the conversation. Men are more factual whereas women want to connect and make a relationship out of the conversation.
• Can lead to miscommunicating between the sexes and could cause misinterpretations

This book makes it seem like men are the bullies in the conversation and women only care about feelings and connecting with others. It is also patronising to men to read it as they sound like bullies too. This can also make women sound less ‘powerful’ than men because men want to get the conversation over with whereas women want to enjoy the conversation and enjoy it. Today, the sexes would be equal so I think the language is slightly diverged.

Mary Beard

She believes that men have more power over vocal compared to women and that women are not treated equally. This is because she thinks that women do not speak authoritative however men come across as ‘deep voiced with connotations of profundity’. Men also appear to always get the last word even if women come up with the ‘excellent suggestion’. In the old punch cartoon she talks about how younger children would be influenced by the behaviour and looks into how women speak in today’s society.

Dale Spencer

The research is based upon the book ‘Men made language’. She argues that men have more power over women over all societies and classes. They also believe that they are the dominant gender and disobedient women who fail certain tasks are then labelled as ‘frigid’ or abnormal’. This is also down to the low toned masculine tone of voice.

Dale Spencer and Pamela fishman challenges to other theories

Pamela- she conducted research upon young American couples by listening to 50 hours of pre-recorded conversations between them. She found that five out of the six subjects were going to graduate school. The subjects included feminists, were white or between the ages of 20-30. She mainly found the women’s language use a lot of tag questions such as ‘you know?’

Dale- she also looked into tag questions such as ‘isn’t it?’ however she believed that this was down to gaining conversational power.

Accent Article

 How are accents changing throughout the UK?

Within the UK, there are thousands of accents ranging from the ‘uneducated accent’ from Essex to the ‘poshest one of all’ by Received Pronunciation users. These accents are quite different when they are in the same room together and can sometimes be quite a challenge to understand.

 

Most people in the UK are brought up with an accent whether it is the slightest phrases or speaking it constantly to everyone.  Some people’s accents might also be more recognised and easier to understand than others but this selection of research tells us otherwise. Labov did some research in 1963 (Martha’s Vineyard) where he flew to America to find out how the British, Portuguese and Wampanoag language, changed in speech. He found out that different areas of the same city have different accents. He also found that the people varied in the open and closed mouth pronunciations however looked mainly for diphthongs- combining two vowels.  This shows that within the city
you can have multiple accents and dialect that can be different from the next but also the way of speaking can be varied. It also provides individuality and being unique to that specific region because having one accent throughout the country would be quite boring, right?

The term of ‘divergence’ explains how accents are verified and how everyone’s accents are completely different to others- from the way people pronounce their words or how they speak in general. In a class survey, I found out that that the friendliest accent was Birmingham (Brummie) and the least trustworthy accent was Scouse. This shows that the divergence can change and determine how people view you as a person. But, what makes the ‘Scouse’ accent sound so untrustworthy and seem less likely to be trusted than any other accent? Received Pronunciation was found to be the most intelligent as they pronounce all the letters in the words, whereas people from Bristol (Bristolians) miss out some letters from how they are supposed to sound like ‘Luvver’ from ‘Lover’, and so it makes it sound like they are more intellectual and have knowledge in what they are speaking about, even if it’s a shopping list! It was also prescriptive as people could be referring this information from either a film or relatives that live elsewhere in the country. Has this become the harsh truth or are people starting to discriminate other accents?

People also diverge as they want to make a good impression on other individuals. This could be at a job interview or in general conversation. For example, at a job interview, if you don’t think your accent or dialect is suitable or sounds confident in getting the job then you might change your accent slightly by making it more precise. People tend to move away to different parts of the country to explore other people’s way of living too and by doing this, making a good first impression is vital.  The term of ‘convergence’ explores how people fit in to a specific social group or class by changing their language and speech. This shows that by moving to a different region for a short while, can impact your personal way of speaking as you are trying to be more like them. Research such as the Milroy Belfast Study in 1987 shows that people seem more friendly and approachable when you are speaking the same dialect and sound similar in accents while also claiming you are ‘a friend of a friend’.

 

Transcript Questions

1. The use of proper nouns like 'Mr Neil' suggest that they are being formal and want to address them directly rather than calling them by there first name. The Barrister is also directly speaking to him using second person pronouns. This is to show that he should be engaging and anyone else would recognise that they are only talking about him.

2. Parts where the dialogue seems prepared is when things are underline like 'so many times'. This shows that they have the evidence even though he can try to deny it. It can also be emphasis that he has done the same thing repetitedly. This can also make them feel on the spot which makes the audience question him. Spontaneous parts are where fillers and pauses are. Both of the people use fillers but the witness pauses for longer. This can be down to thinking or nerves.  The Barrister pauses to make each point of the story stand out so the audience can understand. At the start both people use fillers such as 'er' because they are just getting started and probably find it hard to begin. Later on they begin to to talk 'normally' and they have broke the stage of begining and ackwardness. It doesnt happen again with the barrister. When the barrister stutters at the start with 'er' inbetween some words it sounds like they are not confident with what they are saying. It makes them sound unproffessional and that they are not confident in what they are saying. However, they could be sounding proffessional but could be reading it off a sheet and not memorising what the case is about. Other parts which are also spontaneous is where they talk over each other. Mr N makes out that he is repeating himself as the barister is asking so many questions. It makes it seem like he has planned what he wants to say therefore not listening to the rest of the question. It can also make the witness sound like he is in a rush and wants to get the court case over and done with.

3. At the start of the transcript the barrister has more power than Mr N as they are directly addressing him by calling him 'Mr Neil' and giving factual information to start the case. It can also make it seem like they are only advising him to reply with short answers as they already have the evidence for the case. This  also sounds like they want him to reveal more of the truth. The Barrister also has more power by asking simple questions before hand such as 'what for'. This gives the impression that he hasent said enough and then they go on to say 'youve put two and tow together' which are also underlined. They have figured out the solution by asking sneakily other questions to get to the bottom fo the solutions. Asking rhetorical questions like 'is that right?' also has power as the jury already knows the answers but want to hear it from him himself.
Mr N also shows power as he has interupted the barrister a couple of times. He does this because it shows that he has already thought about what to say and doesnt need the rest of the question. It also shows that he doesnt want to hear anything else or wants to be heard and wants to get on with the next question. He also gives the impression that he doesnt want to wait until the barrister is fnnished and wants to say his part. Saying 'no' when asked if it 'crossed his mind'. This could make him sound agressive or angry as they might not be listening or understanding him. Also, the barrister could also be saying things that are not true so he has to confront them and say what really happened before he gets accussed. He is standing up for his opinion whether it means refining the truth or telling the truth because they might have got it wrong.

4. The case itself i find is very confusing as he has been accussed of driving a car with no insurance but he thinks Mr Peterson told the police on his for driving into his gate. He also starts to repeat himself for not having insurance to empahsis that he made the mistake of not having the insurance. It also doesnt make sense as he then says 'thats not true' even though he just admitted it. The Barrister says after that 'didnt it cross your mind at all?'. This is puzzling as I dont know what crosses his mind and for him to interupt the barrister straight after saying 'no'. Bits where i find it interesting is where Mr N 'laughs quietly'. This could be because the court room is taken seriously and he ruins it by laughing. It could be down to nerves for being on the spot or that he is guilty. It could also be down to pity as they might of got some parts of the information wrong and wants to correct them.

Changing Dialects

Nowadays people would identify your dialect from the area in which you live or social group you hang out with. This can also be the way of identifing everyones individual idolects. Depending on the specific dialect in your region, people can identify it more quickly and easily. This can be because of the types of ways you can pronounce or say certain words. But are certain dialects changing and merging into one? Are accents becoming the same?
Accents can vary from different parts of the UK. A Geordie accent would sound conpletely different to a North London accent. This can occur when certain regions either pronounce words or single letters differently. If you were to move from one side of the UK to the other your accent would be stronger to the people you are now with. For example, a Brummie accent would stanjd out more if you were to move to the South West where it is also different there. If you were to stay there for a while your accent may merge into the accent region you are now living in. This could be down to social groups or generally picking up on the slang or pronounciation of things.
With the ability to travel more across the world than we did 10 years ago, people can go to other countries and explore foreign dialects. Some might be harder to understand than the others. This can also affect certain peoples idiolects too. If you move across the country with your idiolect it can be very different to your new region. This can have a big difference on your now social groups as them too can speak differently than what your old friends did back home. Social medias and television is also a big impact. Watching shows like 'Friends' can also change a persons dialect without realising it. 'Friends' is an American show in which they might say things differently to British people or we might not have heard of. These can be interpreted overseas can cause habits and could affect some children/ teenagers when it comes to exams. It can also enable yourself to fit into a society easier so you feel less uncomfortable. Accents can also be very recognisable if you were travelling abroad. If you were at a hotel resort and had other people from different countries speaking, you could tell by the way thaty they are speaking and also the prononciation of specific words.
Proffessor Crystal states that dialects are 'due to immigrant groups' in urban areas. This states that the main centre of a region (town not the outskirts) can be changed due to the variation in dialects. This being said it means that people with different types of background live within the UK and when in a certain region it can change certain peoples dialects and also idiolects. It can also be passed on to social medias and social groups.

Refugees Articles - Similarities and Differences

One article from bbc news talks about how the neighbouring EU countries are having crisis becuase of the refugees. It shows how each country has dealt/ is dealing with the amount of migrants and refugees coming over.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34278886

Another article from the daily mail real story in which why people are wanting to move away from there home countries. This article goes into more depth about the refugees and gives better facts and statistics about the situation.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3240010/Number-refugees-arriving-Europe-soars-85-year-just-one-five-war-torn-Syria.html

Both of these articles include how the refugees want to get out of there own country and flee to another and say the struggles and difficulties along the line. BBC news says how the countries police have treated the refugees by 'pepper spraying' and 'firing tear gas' at the border. The Daily Mail tells the story of  how the refugees have gotten over boarders and is dealing with the police. Both articles include how the police are dealing with the situation but differently. Both articles include facts and statistics of how many people have died and when people starting leaving there country.

The differences in these articles is that the BBC tells us what each country is doing towards the migrants and how they are trying to identify each individual before they cross the boarder. The Daily Mail tells us the same but how the UK isent really contributing for help. David Cameron instead didnt agree to take in anyone to the country that has already been to another country and are only genuine Syrians. The BBC only focus on how people are getting round to each of the countries rather than saying how each migrant is settling in or getting help from that one place.

Gay marriage - right or wrong?

Blogger 1;
                      I personally think that gay marriage should be legalized everywhere. However, Northern Ireland are not taking it on board and instead are making LGBT people come to court to talk about it. Yes, it is part of our human rights  and no one should have to make a law regarding what gender we all have to marry. Marrying someone whether that would be male or female shouldn't be a big deal yet somehow it is. Why should a different gender come between love? Why does there have to be a law against this? Isn't the reason behind marriage is to get married to the one you want to spend the rest of your life with whether it is the same or different sex?
Two women a couple years ago went and got married against the law and are now being called into court to change the human rights. They might not be the only people in Northern Ireland that want to get married to the same sex so they need to make a stand for the LGBT community in order to change the rights. There should be no law or human rights on who you should marry. You can make that decision when you are old enough to know what you really like, whether that means marrying the same or different sex. These women wanted to make a stand in what they believe should be changed. I agree with them as they're not doing it for themselves or the community today, they are doing it for future generations and to make all life as happy as there same sex marriage.
As I have gotten older I have come to familiarise that everyone should be treated the same and there should be no law against the same sex marriage. My husband and I don't feel comfortable that we are aloud to be married but people that we know have to wait until it an be legalised. As friends we try and do anything we can to make sure they can have the same happiness as we do. By going to parades and campaigns we support them and agree that every marriage should be legal. We strongly believe that the two women going to court can really change the minds and laws of the 21 century and to make the LGBT community proud and welcome with each other.


http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/26/northern-ireland-gay-marriage-ban-in-court-grainne-close-human-rights-issue


Blogger 2;
                     Same sex marriage? Not for me. Why? Because its wrong and disturbing.
Why should anyone want to get married to the same person? I know I have lived with a few of my friends from college, gone out and had a beer with them then played fifa all night but that doesn't mean I want to spend the rest of my life doing that with them every single day. I love them in a sense that they are like my brothers. It would be weird if I came up to them 'oh I really fancy you and want to kiss you'. It just seems wrong.
Imagine growing up as a child and your parents getting divorced. Either your mum or dad decided they are now interested in the same sex. You would feel weirded out. They get married. You now have two mums or two dads. Wouldn't the children and any other young person be confused by the idea of other men kissing other men (or women and women).
I am a Christian. God created Adam and Eve and to make babies to carry on the generations. Adam is a male and Eve is a female. See how they are both different genders? The intention was to always be male and females together and stay with each other for the rest of there life. Having a set of different genders as parents the children can have a point of view for both the sexes instead of growing up living with one side. With different genders they can grow up and be more educated on the issues and take different opinions and succeed better.
So, having read the article about two women wanting to legalise same sex marriage, I can fully disagree as I think it is a waste of an agreement when there are plenty more male and female couple that prefer to share there love. In future generations if it becomes legalised, it would leave many children confused and wondering why people are doing such a thing. This doesn't create a positive image for the family.




Blogger one might of started off the argument with 'I personally think' because they want to give there opinion first then get into the debate as to whether same sex marriage is right. Using rhetorical questions aswell makes it sound like her argument is right and makes people think that she is passionate about her opinions such as 'Why should a different gender come between love?'. Using them as a triplet geives the impression that when you hear this side of the story it will stay in your head as she is giving you multiple questions for you to thik about. Blogger one also sounds like she has grown up with not seeing LGBT people getting married and wants them to be equal. When she used 'there should be no law against the same sex marriage' it tells you that she is not familiar with the legalisation but is ok with it as she wants to make her marrige exactly like everyone elses.
 It also sounds like she is trying to teach her children the way she was brought up with treating people the same. She has talked about this situation with her family and therefore has other opinions to back up her side making it seem more strong. By using 'you can' it sounds like she is directly talking to the audience and is telling them that they can make a change if they can. It is also a 'command' like she should be telling everyone to believe her views. I made this women older and married as she would have some experience in being married and would like to see everyone else feel the same like she did. By her also having a family makes it seem like she wants her children to have the same views as her and want to be brought up better no that society has aloud same sex marridge.


On the other hand, blogger two sounds like an older person that hasent had much experience with the legalisation in marriage and is giving the impression that it is horrible. He is also a Christian and is giving religious views which makes it sound like he has 'back up' from the bible. It also shows that he doesnt want anything to change and likes everything exactly how it is. Startring the debate with rhetorical questions makes it sound like he is going straight to the point. It also gives the impression that he is being sarcastic when saying 'see how theyre both different genders' because he wants his point to be strong and heard. By using short simple sentences creates a story in your head which sticks.He also uses future tense as he is thinking about the possible impacts or effects that same sex mariage would give us and how they would change the society. I made this character a male as men typically stick to one opinion whereas women are more open minded. Men stereotypically also dont enjoy alot of change. He also sounds like he is talking in his socialect by using words such as 'weirded out' whereas blogger one tends to talk like an older women (in which i tried to create).