Peter Trudgill’s 1974 Norwich Study

Peter Trudgill’s 1974 Norwich Study

Peter Trudgill’s research of the dialects and sociolects of different genders and social classes was based in Norwich 1974, and was an attempt to identify the nuances of the accents and dialects held my males and females of different social backgrounds.   The research showed that people of ‘lower’ social classes were more likely to use non-standard forms than those in higher classes.  In total there were 3 people considered to be ‘lower working class’ who used standard forms, all of whom were female.  This is in contrast to the ‘upper middle class’, where 196 used standard form. 

One of the most common differences in speech that Trudgill discovered was the use of the clipped suffix ‘n’, which in Received Pronunciation would be pronounced with the velar nasal ‘ng’ sound.

The differences could simply be a result of the contrasting social backgrounds in which these people were raised.  Alternatively, we could consider the possibility of prestige, which would mean the most likely conclusion would be that those of an ‘upper-middle class background’ are more susceptible to using overt prestige.  Overt prestige is the prestige gained from using the standard forms of English, a perceived indicator of higher levels of education.  On the other hand, those of a working class background may value covert prestige more highly, which is the prestige of maintaining loyalty and solidarity with those of your social background.

Trudgill also discovered that males were more likely to use non-standard forms than females of the same social background.  Some have attributed this to women being more “socially insecure” than men, so they therefore use language more carefully and prefer the prestige from being perceived as well-educated and intelligent, whereas men preferred to being seen as loyal to their background.

Another interesting difference between the genders is that men thought that they were using non-standard forms more frequently than they actually were, whereas women thought they were using standard forms more than they actually were.  This could relate to the theory that women are socially insecure, as they may be perceiving themselves as they want to be perceived, rather than how they actually are.  This may also suggest that men take a more laissez-faire attitude towards language, as they may believe that they would not care about pronouncing the word correctly, even if they were pronouncing it the supposed ‘correct’ way.

http://www.putlearningfirst.com/language/research/norwich.html

https://prezi.com/qfd-eiu5zf51/peter-trudgill-and-the-norwich-study-1974/

http://www.ello.uos.de/field.php/Sociolinguistics/Exemplarystudytrudgill

The pay gap between genders

The pay gap between genders

The text is written by Jennifer Lawrence, in response to the data released in a hacking of Sony, which showed that she was being paid significantly less than her male colleagues.  The fact that Jennifer Lawrence is writing the article about her own experience means that it could be biased.  The frustration Ms Lawrence claims she experienced is reflected in the text, as she uses a blunt, yet self-deprecating tone, along with a number of expletives.

The language used by Jennifer Lawrence is more typical of a stereotypical male than a female. She is usually direct and blunt; for example she says “I’m over trying to find the “adorable” way to state my opinion… f**k that”.  The use of expletives and short blunt sentences is generally speaking a perceived male trait, which seems to be the effect that Ms Lawrence is trying to create.  Furthermore, she does not use the same level of hyper-correct grammar that is expected of women, but instead seems to opt for using basic grammar and vocabulary. 

However, Ms Lawrence seems to maintain her wish to be liked, adopting an apologetic tone.  “I want to be honest and open and, fingers crossed, not piss anyone off.  According to traditional language theories, men would not even take offending people into consideration, and even less so use hedges, such as “fingers crossed”, or “ever-so-slightly”.  Another example of Ms Lawrence’s apologetic tone is found in the utterance “I told it wasn’t relatable, don’t hate me”.  Again, if we were to assume that language stereotypes were true, this would indicate that Ms Lawrence is trying to fulfil the female need to be liked.

Further evidence of Ms Lawrence’s femininity comes from the unnecessary details she includes.  She says “my phone is on the counter and I’m on the coach”, which appears to be fairly irrelevant to the rest of the text.  Traditionally, men speak to achieve an aim, there is usually an objective when men engage in conversation, which is in contrast to Ms Lawrence’s language.

Although there seem to be more features of female language in the text, the general tone appears to be an attempt to mimic masculine language.  Much of what Ms Lawrence’s lexis is masculine, but this is contrasted by the regular use of female language conventions.

I agree that women seem to be underpaid in many occupational fields, as there is, in my opinion, far too much evidence to suggest otherwise.  However, I also believe that Ms Lawrence’s theory that women are paid less because their need to be liked overpowers their will to negotiate a better deal.  I think that Deborah Tannen’s Difference Model best illustrates the reasons behind the gender gap.  Evidence suggests that men are not afraid to cause offense conflict in order to pursue a goal, while on the other hand, women are more reserved and prefer to remain passive, as evidenced by Ms Lawrence’s statements.

NHS Parking Text Analysis

NHS Parking Text Analysis

The sign’s purpose is to inform the receiver of the text of the legal obligations involved in parking in the hospital car park.  The receiver would likely be a visitor to the hospital, so they may be stressed or in a rush.   A large bold font is used for the title: “Terms and Conditions”, which lies on a coloured background; this is designed to attract the reader’s attention, and emphasise the importance of the text.  Below this there is a caption starting with the words “IMPORTANT NOTICE” in capitals, which is also intended to make the reader feel obliged to read the text.  However, it should be noted that this is not in the same large bold font that the title is written in, which could suggest that the author of the text did not want the audience to read it, as this would mean they would have to pay a monetary fine to the author’s organisation.

The lexical content is formal and often contains words related to the law concerning parking.  To accommodate for the audience, who may be stressed and hurried, the text is concise and utterances are shorter than they might be in a different type of text or context.  The author is also legally obligated to explain the legal obligations of the receiver, so they must maintain clarity and ensure that all of the necessary information is present.  At the foot of text there is a paragraph in a smaller font which details the conditions under which the company, Total Parking Solutions (TPS), can be held responsible for any damage to property.  This could be written in a smaller print because it is not necessary for the receiver to read this section unless they are under the circumstances it describes.  It could also be that TPS wishes to avoid legal action, which is less likely to happen if the receiver is ignorant of the law.

Several diagrams have been used to illustrate the points raised in each paragraph, which may be to improve the clarity of the text, which is beneficial to both parties in this context.  As mentioned previously, the receiver may be in a pressured situation, so using diagrams may serve to make the information easier to digest for them.  It should also be noted that several logos have been used, possibly for the purpose of making the text look more official and legitimate.  For example the NHS logo has been used, which may increase the trust the receiver places in the text, considering that the NHS is perceived to be a large, reputable organisation.

 

Cultural diversification and globalisation are causing a meteoric change in accents and dialects across the UK, and indeed the world.  The numerous accents from various regions of the UK that were expected to die out are now flourishing anew with several foreign influences.  It is Received Pronunciation that is actually experiencing a decline, because of the amalgamation of new dialects in the cultural melting pot that the UK has become.

Everywhere in the world has its own unique dialect, and the UK is one of the most diverse nations in the world when it comes to language.  Each region in England has a very unique dialect, and now they are being infused with foreign influences such Creole, Australian, mainland European and a variety of Asian dialects.

New accents are slowly integrated into original regional accents, as immigration introduces people of different cultural backgrounds.  As people interact with others, they learn and sometimes adopt features of each other’s dialects, which is how new dialects are formed.

Many dialects have changed to the degree that entirely new terms, never before used in English language, have been infused into them.  Slang words such as ‘waste man’ (useless person), and sick (great or awesome) both come from Caribbean slang, while ‘stoked’ (excited) comes from Australia, and anime (Asian animated shows) is native to East Asia.

It has been predicted that in one hundred years, English will become a global language known as Panglish, which could be adopted by as many as two billion people.  This phenomenon is being caused by the amalgamation of English with the native languages of those who speak English as a second language.  However, it should be noted that this a not a new concept, considering that Latin forms the basis of almost every language spoken in Europe.  Language is constantly in a cycle of change, and these phenomena reflect its ephemeral nature.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1001746/Panglish-spoke--near-future.html

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/apr/01/highereducation.britishidentity

Courtroom Transcript

Courtroom Transcript

In this transcript the barrister holds the power, which is clear because he speaks in larger sections than Mr Neil.  The Barrister has shorter pauses and uses fewer fillers, suggesting that he feels more confident in their current situation.

Mr Neil takes 2.5 seconds to answer a simple yes or no question, indicating reluctance to answer, which implicates that he may be lying.  He then speaks simultaneously to the Barrister when he becomes suspicious of him, which is possibly done in order to make his answer seem more confident, but could also be a sign of nervous behaviour.

The Barrister, impatient at the attempted evasion of his questions, uses emphasis in the sentence: “is that because the police have been to see you so many times Mr Neil, that you can’t remember what they were up to see you about one incident, compared to another incident.”  This is further evidence to suggest that the Barrister is in control of the situation, because he is using language more articulately and effectively, to move the interaction in the desired direction.  This is in comparison to Mr Neil, who responds to the question after quietly laughing, which is a classic example of over-compensation.  In this case it could be that Mr Neil is trying to compensate for his nervousness by trying to appear casual, by laughing.

Another interesting feature of the text is that the Barrister uses proper nouns to refer to people, rather than personal pronouns.  This is to be expected as part of the lexis used in this context, because the Barrister is aiming to articulate his points with absolute clarity.  Questions are used exclusively by the Barrister, identifying him as the subject setter.  It is important that clarity is maintained in their situation, because it is imperative that the receivers of the text, the jury, understand it.  It is almost certain that the Barrister has pre-planned his speech, so as to make the process more efficient and to avoid mistakes.

MR Neil on the other hand, is far more spontaneous in his speech, which, along with his apparent nervousness, is the reason that he uses far more fillers and pauses than the Barrister.  As mentioned earlier, he sometime does not comply with the courtroom convention of turn taking, and rushes to answer some questions, in order to avoid further examination.

The topic of the Syrian refugee crisis is very relevant in current news, with many strong opinions on both sides of the debate. 

The first character, Simon, is passionate about helping the Syrian refugees, which influences the content of his writing strongly.  His views are similar to my own, but he is more one-sided and extreme in his argument, and argues with more emotion than I would, if I was writing this blog.

His opening sentence is dramatic and shocking, which is designed to grab the reader’s attention and is stated as a fact, so as to garner their support.  By studying the lexical content, we can see that Simon uses several superlatives in phrases such as “the greatest humanitarian crisis ever” and “the largest refugee group in the world”, to add weight to his argument, and create the sense that the crisis could not be any worse.

He tries to legitimise his views using statistics, creating a cogent argument which seems difficult to refute.  For example he compares Britain’s wealth to the monetary requirement of resolving the refugee crisis by stating that “it would take no more than 0.5% of our wealth to aid them”. 

Throughout the text, Simon uses rhetorical devices to make the reader consider the situation from his viewpoint. This is a common persuasive technique and is one of the examples of how he tries to persuade the reader to adopt his ideas.  For example, he says “after all, aren’t they people just like us, who through no fault of their own have been given a terribly cruel fate?” 

Another example of his attempts at persuasion is the emotive language he uses, where he asks the reader to “Imagine your family being forced out of your home by war and forced to live like animals, scavenging desperately for food and shelter, never knowing whether or not you will be murdered, starved or frozen to death.”  This is a typical example of a producer using guilt to manipulate the receiver’s thought process, making them empathise with the producer, and in this case, the refugees too.

In the third paragraph Simon uses a metaphor, stating that we “leave the vulnerable to fend off the wolves”.  Metaphors can be used to exaggerate or emphasise an argument, and in this case also elicit and emotional response from the reader.

In the first sentence of the fourth paragraph, Simon uses reductio ad absurdum to diminish opposing views.  In this case he says that “those in support of the alternative are allowing millions of innocents to freeze and starve to death”, which extends the argument of his opposition to such an extreme extent as to effectively invalidate it.

He concludes his article by implying strongly that his opinions are essentially facts, saying that he hopes his audience have “realised the truth of the situation”, which is intended to consolidate his perspective.

Robert’s blog is far more analytical in that its primary purpose is to unravel the issue, instead of strongly persuading the audience to adopt his point of view.  While I do not agree that we should avoid aiding refugees, I have portrayed Robert as a careful thinker, rather than Simon’s stereotype, which I also believe to be society’s stereotype, that all those against aiding refugees are callous, hysterical racists.  He is pragmatic about the situation, and raises his concerns about the matter rationally.

In Robert’s opening paragraph he summarises the situation and his view on it, using the rhetorical question: “what can we really do to help them?” to make the reader consider the situation from his point of view.  This is a good decision for his purposes, as it allows him to discuss his views without being immediately inflammatory.

Like Simon, Robert uses statistics to make his claims appear to be based on fact.  This is unsurprising as it is a very common device in several modes of writing, with many different purposes.  The frequency with which statistics are used in arguments can be attributed to the fact that they are effective for making an argument appear to be iron-clad.

Unlike Simon however, Robert uses far fewer persuasive techniques, and is far less emotive; he does not use phrases such as “cruel fate”, as Simon does.  He gives examples of where aid has failed in the past, which fits with the theme of making the audience consider, that he is trying to formulate in his more factual and analytical style of writing.

Robert also states that: “should we gain enough housing to accommodate for these massive amounts of immigrants, I would revise my views on the matter”.  This is the opposite attitude that Simon has towards the situation, as it is clear that Simon is very unlikely to consider changing his perspective on the matter, regardless of factors that may take effect in the future. 

In his conclusion Robert he summarises his views which indirectly encourages his readers to consider the dangers of the situation before making a final decision.  This is a great contrast to Simon who “implores” that his readers “show compassion”.  The use of the word implore suggests that the situation is severe, and implicates that it is desperate and requires immediate support to prevent the crisis from worsening.  Robert’s conclusion is not a plea for support, but seems to be more like a formal request.

Simon: 25 years old, intelligent but has a tendency to argue emotionally.

Simon’s Blog on the Syrian refugee crisis

We are currently witnessing on of the greatest humanitarian crises the world has ever seen.  It is estimated that there are currently around 3.8 million Syrian refugees, making them the largest refugee group in the world.  More than 50% of these refugees are children who have lost everything; their homes, their families and their childhoods.  They’re forced to work and scavenge at very young ages just for their survival, and must sometimes even provide for the rest of their family as well.

It would take £5 billion to meet the needs of the unfortunates affected by this appalling injustice, which could be raised with ease by developed countries such as the UK, considering our GDP of $2.7 trillion.  So why is it that the refugees must suffer the most disgusting conditions and indignities imaginable, when it would take no more than 0.5% of our wealth to aid them? 

Quite frankly the lack of care and compassion displayed by our leaders disgusts me, they are greedy and arrogant, these are the same people who punish the lowest earners in our society and leave the vulnerable to fend off the wolves. So we must act to assist the refugees, before more lives are lost to suffering.  After all, aren’t they people just like us, who through no fault of their own have been given a terribly cruel fate?  It is important that we consider this from the perspective of the refugees.  Imagine your family being forced out of your home by war and forced to live like animals, scavenging desperately for food and shelter, never knowing whether or not you will be murdered, starved or frozen to death.

I can’t believe that there is even a debate about whether we should allow refugees into this generally very fair and tolerant country, when those in support of the alternative are allowing millions of innocents to freeze and starve to death.  There are thousands of houses in Britain which could be used to give the migrants a home, where they could be safe and secure, while also adding to our economy by working, so why are we not utilising this?  Despite the ignorant stereotype, refugees want to come to Britain because they are desperate and want to get jobs to improve their standard of living, not to claim benefits, use the NHS and ‘steal our jobs’.

To those of you out there who have read this blog and realised the truth of the situation, I implore that you show compassion and stand by me and the many others fighting for the basic human rights of the oppressed and neglected Syrian refugees, so that we can bring hope to their futures.  It would be plain cruelty to let them starve and freeze with no food or shelter.

Robert: 40 years old, a logical thinker, but less empathetic and more able to argue his case impassionately.  Believes in tradition and is concerned with the perceived damage to British culture, but is not actually racist.

Robert’s blog on the Syrian migrant crisis

In the past year, we have been inundated with news stories of the Syrian migrant crisis, and it is undeniable that these migrants have suffered in their tribulations.  However, what can we really do to help them?

It would supposedly cost £5 billion to meet the needs of the migrants, but I suspect that a crisis of this magnitude will require far more money and resources than this prediction suggests.  Moreover, we do not know how effectively this money will be utilised, and £5 billion is a massive quantity of money to give up when we do not know exactly what it might be used for.  Look at much of the aid Britain sends to African countries for example; a great deal is used to further the interests of their governments, and much of it is used completely ineffectually.

Another concern of mine is that by allowing large numbers of migrants into Britain we are denying homes to those in Britain who are already homeless, because we already have a very limited supply of housing, which should not be handed out without consideration for the potential consequences.  Should we gain enough housing to accommodate for these massive amounts of immigrants, I would revise my views on the matter, but for now, it is best that we first deal with housing those in the UK who are homeless.

It seems to me that we are also failing to consider the fact that by allowing more immigrants into the country, we could alienate people living in the UK already.  I believe that we have inflamed the issue of racism by forcing multiculturalism on people, which creates tensions and divisions in our society.  In almost all areas containing large numbers of people of several ethnic groups, we see that each group inhabits their own area.  In Bristol for example, there is a high concentration of black and Muslim ethnic groups living in one area.  While I am not against diversification, I do not believe that multiculturalism forced to happen in such a manner is healthy for society as it breeds resentment and tension between groups, and many British people believe that their own culture is being damaged by this.

To conclude my views, I believe that we must not be hasty and rush in to be seen as the hero, when there are some very real and very valid concerns to be considered when deciding whether or not we should allow migrants to flood into the country, on such a massive scale.