Tuesday, 9 December 2014
10 Reasons Why You Should Learn English: A rebuttal.
Are you kidding me? An article in English telling people to learn English as a second language? Where do I even start? In fact I don't think I have to. Enough said.
Tuesday, 2 December 2014
Refining my coursework
Upon further research in the area of my coursework investigation, particularly with regards to Piaget's theory of linguistic development I have decided to adjust the scope of my investigation. Where previously I had decided to look at children from ages 4-11, I now intend to widen it to include children up to 16 years old. This is because at 11 years old, many key CLA theories would suggest that the child has still yet to master the nuances of language, meaning that it may be possible to observe further lexical development across that age range, painting a more complete picture using the data collected. Finally, the somewhat abstract nature of the image I selected for the descriptive task means that there is potential for a huge difference in the way a young child would describe it than an older teen. For example, a child might say what they see (a man, a forest, a girl), but a teen might be able to infer more detailed information or use alternative synonyms (a prince, a grove, a maiden)
I also found it very interesting to find that supposedly some children never leave the third stage of Jean Piaget's theory, the 'concrete operational stage'. I have been faced with many teens and adults who seemed barely literate in even their first language, and I would be interested to see if I could find some of these people and see if the data supports this fact or not.
I also think that Jean Aitchison's theories on CLA could bear relevance as well, particularly the network building stage. I am interested to see how likely children over different ages are to describe how elements of the picture relate to each other, for example, upon seeing that there is a sentient tree man, fairies, and other seemingly magical sprites and critters, someone might determine what they see as an 'enchanted forest' or 'magical grove', or perhaps infer from that fantasy setting that the tree man is an 'ent' or 'treant', that the man is a 'prince' or 'adventurer', that the woman is a 'maiden', or a 'princess'. They may even infer some kind of relationship between the two, perhaps they are 'lovers' or 'king and queen'. Since the image gives no outside context, except that which one can infer from common fantasy tropes and cliches, I believe there will be a good deal of varied language used by all children, but that some key themes may crop up again and again.
I also found it very interesting to find that supposedly some children never leave the third stage of Jean Piaget's theory, the 'concrete operational stage'. I have been faced with many teens and adults who seemed barely literate in even their first language, and I would be interested to see if I could find some of these people and see if the data supports this fact or not.
I also think that Jean Aitchison's theories on CLA could bear relevance as well, particularly the network building stage. I am interested to see how likely children over different ages are to describe how elements of the picture relate to each other, for example, upon seeing that there is a sentient tree man, fairies, and other seemingly magical sprites and critters, someone might determine what they see as an 'enchanted forest' or 'magical grove', or perhaps infer from that fantasy setting that the tree man is an 'ent' or 'treant', that the man is a 'prince' or 'adventurer', that the woman is a 'maiden', or a 'princess'. They may even infer some kind of relationship between the two, perhaps they are 'lovers' or 'king and queen'. Since the image gives no outside context, except that which one can infer from common fantasy tropes and cliches, I believe there will be a good deal of varied language used by all children, but that some key themes may crop up again and again.
Thursday, 6 November 2014
Isaac Hampson Gets Real... But What Is Real?
A classic lie taught to children these days is that of the five senses. There are in fact far more than five senses, but the five described are simply the most obvious ones. All of them were evolved over the course of Earthling history at different times, and all of them play a huge part in allowing us to understand the world. Different animals rely on different senses to varying degrees, for example humans are often extremely dependent on sight, whereas the ability to smell is at this point more of a nice detail. For a dog however, their sense of smell alone can reach far farther than any human sense. Heck, they can even smell round corners! A dog is considered to be a rather intelligent animal. So is a human. But the two creatures certainly have a very different image of reality.
When we experience the world, we experience it through all of our senses simultaneously. However, despite being completely different processes, the information all converges into one clear picture in our mind. We see the sights, feel the feels, smell the smells, and bring it all together into our experiences. Think of the human mind as a T.V. set. It receives all these electrical inputs and radio signals and runs them through the magical refinery, spitting out an episode of Eastenders.
We look at a table and see a solid, still object. However, what we see is not at all the 'truth' of things. The table appears to be smooth on top, however we know that it is actually made up of atoms, molecules and particles. We cannot make out these individual building blocks on a table any more than an astronaut can make out individual trees on Earth. But, they are there. The problem is, human senses are focused on a larger scale than that. It wouldn't have done us any good to be able to know an atom when we see one across our evolutionary history, so we cannot view them with our naked senses. It is also worth noting that we do not 'see' the table. Our eyes merely trap a certain amount of light, which is translated into nerve impulses, which is then re-translated into what we 'see'. We think that when we wave our hands, we are controlling it because our touch information and sight information correspond, but that is merely because it is all we know. So already we realize we are severely limited in our senses: we can't see things that are too small, or too big. They may as well not even exist to us. We see colours only because of the available spectrum of light. There is no 'durple' light, so we are unable to see the colour 'durple'. In fact colour is an invention of the mind, just like sound.
If a tree falls in a forest with no-one to hear it, does it still make a sound? Well, yes. And no. If there is no-one to hear it of course there is no sound. There is merely vibrations of the air, that if a creature with an ear were to be in range of, could be converted into a sound in the mind. But what this problem really illustrates is not some pseudo-philosophical point, but rather that we are also severely limited in our perceptions of reality by language.
The popular Sapir-Whorff hypothesis illustrates this handily. It is, broadly speaking, the idea that what you call something matters. In the english language, we define sound in this context as 'vibrations that travel through the air or another medium and can be heard when they reach a person's or animal's ear.' This quite handily crushes the 'tree falling in the deserted forest' though experiment, as it becomes clear by the meaning of the words that there was no 'sound'. However, if sound merely meant: 'vibrations that travel through the air or another medium' then the answer would be different. This proves that 'truth' is a purely subjective concept, as different people will use different words to describe things. For example, a prosecutor might say 'This vicious beast savaged my client mercilessly leaving him deformed for life', and the defendant might say 'My harmless little pug only nibbled his finger a bit and gave him a couple of tiny scratches.
And the interesting thing is that this should all be self-evident, but humans are very concerned with the ego, and it is very good far the human ego to think that we are the pinnacle of evolution, gods among beasts, the only truly intelligent life on Earth. Many people would be entirely disconcerted to know that nothing in life could ever be held to be 'certain' or 'true', as there are many people out there who fear nothing more than the unknown, a fact we have only proved after centuries of fearing change, progress, and the unfamiliar.
When we experience the world, we experience it through all of our senses simultaneously. However, despite being completely different processes, the information all converges into one clear picture in our mind. We see the sights, feel the feels, smell the smells, and bring it all together into our experiences. Think of the human mind as a T.V. set. It receives all these electrical inputs and radio signals and runs them through the magical refinery, spitting out an episode of Eastenders.
We look at a table and see a solid, still object. However, what we see is not at all the 'truth' of things. The table appears to be smooth on top, however we know that it is actually made up of atoms, molecules and particles. We cannot make out these individual building blocks on a table any more than an astronaut can make out individual trees on Earth. But, they are there. The problem is, human senses are focused on a larger scale than that. It wouldn't have done us any good to be able to know an atom when we see one across our evolutionary history, so we cannot view them with our naked senses. It is also worth noting that we do not 'see' the table. Our eyes merely trap a certain amount of light, which is translated into nerve impulses, which is then re-translated into what we 'see'. We think that when we wave our hands, we are controlling it because our touch information and sight information correspond, but that is merely because it is all we know. So already we realize we are severely limited in our senses: we can't see things that are too small, or too big. They may as well not even exist to us. We see colours only because of the available spectrum of light. There is no 'durple' light, so we are unable to see the colour 'durple'. In fact colour is an invention of the mind, just like sound.
If a tree falls in a forest with no-one to hear it, does it still make a sound? Well, yes. And no. If there is no-one to hear it of course there is no sound. There is merely vibrations of the air, that if a creature with an ear were to be in range of, could be converted into a sound in the mind. But what this problem really illustrates is not some pseudo-philosophical point, but rather that we are also severely limited in our perceptions of reality by language.
The popular Sapir-Whorff hypothesis illustrates this handily. It is, broadly speaking, the idea that what you call something matters. In the english language, we define sound in this context as 'vibrations that travel through the air or another medium and can be heard when they reach a person's or animal's ear.' This quite handily crushes the 'tree falling in the deserted forest' though experiment, as it becomes clear by the meaning of the words that there was no 'sound'. However, if sound merely meant: 'vibrations that travel through the air or another medium' then the answer would be different. This proves that 'truth' is a purely subjective concept, as different people will use different words to describe things. For example, a prosecutor might say 'This vicious beast savaged my client mercilessly leaving him deformed for life', and the defendant might say 'My harmless little pug only nibbled his finger a bit and gave him a couple of tiny scratches.
And the interesting thing is that this should all be self-evident, but humans are very concerned with the ego, and it is very good far the human ego to think that we are the pinnacle of evolution, gods among beasts, the only truly intelligent life on Earth. Many people would be entirely disconcerted to know that nothing in life could ever be held to be 'certain' or 'true', as there are many people out there who fear nothing more than the unknown, a fact we have only proved after centuries of fearing change, progress, and the unfamiliar.
Sunday, 2 November 2014
Tuesday, 30 September 2014
Investigation Ideas
I am still not clear on precisely what the content of my investigation will be, however I have made progress on deciding how I should go about collecting some data. After doing a task which depicted roughly 20 different liquid holding containers, and asked you to name them all, I was sufficiently interested enough in the idea to try and copy it. The things I am now considering is exactly what I am going to be testing for, using this method.
First I will have to design the task, so the first step is to think of a hyponym, then think of a lot of hypernyms that fit into it. Then I have to draw each of those things as accurately as possible. I have considered what that hyponym could be, and thought of a few things, such as fruits, that are quite recognizable but also come in many different varieties. Then I simply have to make a table in which the volunteer can label each of the fruits, and there I have my data, from which I could draw conclusions.
One thing I have thought of testing was the differences between those who were from Bristol and those who were from Bath, and see if any relevant conclusions come up, or indeed, if there are very few differences, that could be relevant too.
First I will have to design the task, so the first step is to think of a hyponym, then think of a lot of hypernyms that fit into it. Then I have to draw each of those things as accurately as possible. I have considered what that hyponym could be, and thought of a few things, such as fruits, that are quite recognizable but also come in many different varieties. Then I simply have to make a table in which the volunteer can label each of the fruits, and there I have my data, from which I could draw conclusions.
One thing I have thought of testing was the differences between those who were from Bristol and those who were from Bath, and see if any relevant conclusions come up, or indeed, if there are very few differences, that could be relevant too.
Monday, 29 September 2014
The different ways we acquire language
Language Acquisition Device
Not much is known about the workings of the human brain, and this 'device' is theoretically located somewhere in the human brain, though nothing can be made certain of. It is this device that supposedly allows and helps children to intuit language features as they do, learning at exponentially growing speeds. This is a nativist idea, first proposed by linguist and philosopher Noam Chomsky.
Nativism
The idea that we are born with certain innate understandings or abilities that assist us in acquiring language features. One idea that supports this theory is that there are no records or evidences of human civilizations that did NOT have some kind of language. Another example is that all healthy five year olds will have learned at least one language by that age, though obviously do not yet possess a mastery of that language. By adulthood, they will have mastered the use of their language, and will have a pragmatic understanding of grammatical rules, though both the adult and the child will have difficulty articulating exactly what these rules are, why they know them, and why they even matter.
Behaviorism
This is the idea that we learn language through positive and negative reinforcement, like a dog being trained. It suggests that we learn language by being rewarded when we get it right, and being punished when we get it wrong. However, these studies were carried out on dogs and pigeons, rather than on actual children, so the relevance of the data and conclusions drawn from it are somewhat questionable.
Cognitive Theory
This is the idea that children learn language because they are desperate to, they feel an intense need to express themselves and their desires, which motivates them to be attentive in the presence of experienced language users and inspires them to put their share of the effort in when conversing with other language users.
Input Theory
This is the idea that children learn language by absorbing it, primarily from their caregivers, who are likely to speak to and around them the most. Garegivers are also very likely to use 'parentese', converging with their child's language to accommodate their limited understanding. This is also known as Child Directed Speech. Child Directed Speech is an important part of the learning process, as caregivers will encourage the child to converse by directing the conversation through use of interrogatives and by prompting them in times of uncertainty.
This is the idea that we learn language through positive and negative reinforcement, like a dog being trained. It suggests that we learn language by being rewarded when we get it right, and being punished when we get it wrong. However, these studies were carried out on dogs and pigeons, rather than on actual children, so the relevance of the data and conclusions drawn from it are somewhat questionable.
Cognitive Theory
This is the idea that children learn language because they are desperate to, they feel an intense need to express themselves and their desires, which motivates them to be attentive in the presence of experienced language users and inspires them to put their share of the effort in when conversing with other language users.
Input Theory
This is the idea that children learn language by absorbing it, primarily from their caregivers, who are likely to speak to and around them the most. Garegivers are also very likely to use 'parentese', converging with their child's language to accommodate their limited understanding. This is also known as Child Directed Speech. Child Directed Speech is an important part of the learning process, as caregivers will encourage the child to converse by directing the conversation through use of interrogatives and by prompting them in times of uncertainty.
Monday, 8 September 2014
Unspeakably Intriguing
Unspeak is the art of giving hidden meaning to your words. An example of Unspeak could be a mobster who says they are going to 'make you an offer you can't refuse'. What they mean is that they are going to kill you if you do not co-operate with their request, but they mask that meaning by using something of a euphemism.
Words that changed or acquired meanings over time
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/words-literally-changed-meaning-through-2173079
The above Mirror article is an informative piece that lists some words which have changed meanings over time. The complexity of the article is quite low, suggesting it aims to encompass a non-specialist audience who are perhaps interested in language features. The primary purpose is to inform, and the secondary purpose is to entertain, as the article informs the reader on interesting language features. The form of the piece is a listed article on a webpage.
The author is looking at language change, more specifically how specific words have evolved over time to change meanings, many of which almost change to an entirely opposite meaning. Possibly the most well-known and relevant example of this today is the term gay, which used to mean something comparable to 'joyful or colorful' but now is used to refer to a homosexual person.
One technique the author uses is that they refer to themselves and the reader within the same pronoun: 'we'. For example, 'So which other words have we got wrong for so long they are now right?'. One would hope that the author of an article in The Mirror, a well-known publication, does not in fact misuse words with the same frequency that the average reader might do. Instead, it is more likely that the author wishes to put readers at ease with the informative content of the article, by grouping themselves with the reader, the reader may be more inclined to feel like they are on the same intellectual level as the author on this topic, and so need not worry that the content of the article will be difficult to fully comprehend.
The article is written in quite a polite, but informal register. The author uses jokes at certain parts in the text, in order to entertain the reader whilst also informing them on language issues. The informative nature of the text means that for the most part the language used is rather clinical, particularly where word definitions are concerned, as a single word out of place can change how the reader understands the definition drastically.
The writer makes use of conventions, by formatting the article as a list of headings with a few sentences between each one, descending in alphabetical order. This means that the information is very simple to navigate for the reader, as it brings an easily discernible order to the text.
The above Mirror article is an informative piece that lists some words which have changed meanings over time. The complexity of the article is quite low, suggesting it aims to encompass a non-specialist audience who are perhaps interested in language features. The primary purpose is to inform, and the secondary purpose is to entertain, as the article informs the reader on interesting language features. The form of the piece is a listed article on a webpage.
The author is looking at language change, more specifically how specific words have evolved over time to change meanings, many of which almost change to an entirely opposite meaning. Possibly the most well-known and relevant example of this today is the term gay, which used to mean something comparable to 'joyful or colorful' but now is used to refer to a homosexual person.
One technique the author uses is that they refer to themselves and the reader within the same pronoun: 'we'. For example, 'So which other words have we got wrong for so long they are now right?'. One would hope that the author of an article in The Mirror, a well-known publication, does not in fact misuse words with the same frequency that the average reader might do. Instead, it is more likely that the author wishes to put readers at ease with the informative content of the article, by grouping themselves with the reader, the reader may be more inclined to feel like they are on the same intellectual level as the author on this topic, and so need not worry that the content of the article will be difficult to fully comprehend.
The article is written in quite a polite, but informal register. The author uses jokes at certain parts in the text, in order to entertain the reader whilst also informing them on language issues. The informative nature of the text means that for the most part the language used is rather clinical, particularly where word definitions are concerned, as a single word out of place can change how the reader understands the definition drastically.
The writer makes use of conventions, by formatting the article as a list of headings with a few sentences between each one, descending in alphabetical order. This means that the information is very simple to navigate for the reader, as it brings an easily discernible order to the text.
Monday, 11 August 2014
Cymraeg
Land of the sheep on the patchwork quilt,
germanic tongue with a soft valley lilt,
Warm and yet cold as is rose quartz,
fostering of gentle mind and thoughts.
germanic tongue with a soft valley lilt,
Warm and yet cold as is rose quartz,
fostering of gentle mind and thoughts.
Saturday, 28 June 2014
Monday, 16 June 2014
transcript of Ella explains what a wookie is
"Hey /Ella."
"[/INAUDIBLE BABY NOISE]"
"Who's the guy from Star Wars on your cup?"
"Chewbacca."
"Chewbacca? (1) What is Chewbacca?"
"A woobkie"
"A what?"
"A wookie."
"A Wookie?"
"nmmmn"
"What does he say?"
"Byah"
"What- How does- What do Wookies say?"
"Blyah."
"Blrlrlrlrl," [the mother laughs] "What do they say?"
"Brryah. Brryah. Brrr. Byah. Byah. Byabyah!"
"Who says that?"
"Chewbacca."
"And what is Chewbacca again?"
"A wookie."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=229NvV0SRHw
This text features two speakers, who I assume to be parent and child but whose exact relationship is not explicitly stated. The main audience is likely casual browsers of video sharing site YouTube, or people who enjoy videos of cute things, which is a very wide demographic. Most people find YouTube videos such as this either through specific search terms, through the website's 'recommendations' feature, or by stumbling across it via related videos (which is how I found it). The purpose is to entertain, as the information presented in the video is not worth anyone's time and effort by itself. The form is a seemingly unedited video.
This conversation is formatted as a series of interrogatives, asked by a parent, and answered by the child. This is likely because it can be difficult to speak with very young children without giving them specific prompts to work from, as the framework of social conventions is still usually very bare bones at such a low age. For example, 'Who's the star wars guy on your cup?' asks the parent. 'Chewbacca.' is the childs response, but then the parent repeats the answer: 'Chewbacca?'. I think the parent does this for a few reasons: to confirm that she heard the child correctly, as children do not always pronounce words as an adult would, to again prompt the child into making further conversation, and also as a low-effort response to the child's correct answer. For the child this probably creates the effect of knowing that the parent heard their answer, as a kind of back-channel agreement, and also draws the child into further conversation, which forwards the parent's agenda of teaching their child English language and conversational technique through immersive learning.
"[/INAUDIBLE BABY NOISE]"
"Who's the guy from Star Wars on your cup?"
"Chewbacca."
"Chewbacca? (1) What is Chewbacca?"
"A woobkie"
"A what?"
"A wookie."
"A Wookie?"
"nmmmn"
"What does he say?"
"Byah"
"What- How does- What do Wookies say?"
"Blyah."
"Blrlrlrlrl," [the mother laughs] "What do they say?"
"Brryah. Brryah. Brrr. Byah. Byah. Byabyah!"
"Who says that?"
"Chewbacca."
"And what is Chewbacca again?"
"A wookie."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=229NvV0SRHw
This text features two speakers, who I assume to be parent and child but whose exact relationship is not explicitly stated. The main audience is likely casual browsers of video sharing site YouTube, or people who enjoy videos of cute things, which is a very wide demographic. Most people find YouTube videos such as this either through specific search terms, through the website's 'recommendations' feature, or by stumbling across it via related videos (which is how I found it). The purpose is to entertain, as the information presented in the video is not worth anyone's time and effort by itself. The form is a seemingly unedited video.
This conversation is formatted as a series of interrogatives, asked by a parent, and answered by the child. This is likely because it can be difficult to speak with very young children without giving them specific prompts to work from, as the framework of social conventions is still usually very bare bones at such a low age. For example, 'Who's the star wars guy on your cup?' asks the parent. 'Chewbacca.' is the childs response, but then the parent repeats the answer: 'Chewbacca?'. I think the parent does this for a few reasons: to confirm that she heard the child correctly, as children do not always pronounce words as an adult would, to again prompt the child into making further conversation, and also as a low-effort response to the child's correct answer. For the child this probably creates the effect of knowing that the parent heard their answer, as a kind of back-channel agreement, and also draws the child into further conversation, which forwards the parent's agenda of teaching their child English language and conversational technique through immersive learning.
Transcript of Star Wars according to three year old
Well... (3) Well... (3) OK (.) The sand people capture robots (.) and drive (.) and (.) sell 'em (2) in garage sale (.) kinda like garage sale except they're selling robots (1) and no-ones gonna buy R2 and the shiny guy (.) the shiny guy always worries. (.) Luke's gonna buy those. (2) And Obi Kenobis kind of a teacher (.) He's (.) teaching Luke (0.5) how to (.) learn how to do his little (1) light up sword he has to try to block the little pokey ball (Pokeball?) He tried to do it with out seeing. Obi Kenobi sometimes move things around sometimes he's disappears. Princess Leia got out of jail and out of the spacesip (.) And they got (1) the big thing that blowed up stuff they (.) we blowed it up together (1) it blowed up princess leias planet. But don't talk back to (.) Darth Vader he'll get ya! It's an exciting movie...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBM854BTGL0
This text is a transcript of an edited monologue spoken by a young girl into the camera which focuses on presenting the key plot points of Star Wars: A New Hope. The audience for the YouTube video is likely people who have seen Star Wars and enjoy cutesy or short videos. The purpose is to entertain, as the main focus of the video is on showing the authors opinions and observations about a fictional movie. The form is a live-action video recording on YouTube. The fact that the text has been edited may mean that the video was staged, or perhaps irrelevant or inappropriate scenes were cut, or perhaps it was clipped to a 'highlights reel' of sorts.
The speaker in this text is a young toddler, which creates the gimmick that this video relies on: That a young person has strange, cute and funny ideas about movies they have seen. For example, "don't talk back to Darth Vader" is cute because it makes use of children's language as they understand the world, and is somewhat funny, possibly because of the implication that such a young child can not think of many more antagonistic actions than 'talking back' to someone. In fact, a large aspect of the entertainment on display in this text stems from the fact that, to a person well-versed in the English language, this child speaks very childishly, often stumbling over words or using non-standard forms of grammar, as well as novice level phonetic pronunciation (See: "Spacesip). This creates a sense of endearment in the reader to the young child, perhaps the reader is nostalgic about when they or someone else spoke a similar way, or they enjoy to witness the often care-free attitude of a child when using English Language.
This text links to today's other text both in subject (Star Wars) and in form: A young child talking about Star Wars. The child from this text is seemingly older, indicated by a greater grasp of linguistic techniques. One might say that the child from the above text is a toddler, whereas the child in the second text is more of an infant. In this text, which is edited, it does not seem as if there is anyone playing the part of an interviewer or interrogator, whereas in the second text, a voice who I assume to be an older female relative is prompting the child to speak. However, such sections could have been edited out in this text in order to make the child's insights seem more original, or perhaps not. Other similarities arise in that both texts feature non-standard english, as expected from such young children, though the first text merely contains simple non-standard errors, whereas the second text features heavy use of nonsensical language, particularly when imitating the bestial cry of a 'Wookie'.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBM854BTGL0
This text is a transcript of an edited monologue spoken by a young girl into the camera which focuses on presenting the key plot points of Star Wars: A New Hope. The audience for the YouTube video is likely people who have seen Star Wars and enjoy cutesy or short videos. The purpose is to entertain, as the main focus of the video is on showing the authors opinions and observations about a fictional movie. The form is a live-action video recording on YouTube. The fact that the text has been edited may mean that the video was staged, or perhaps irrelevant or inappropriate scenes were cut, or perhaps it was clipped to a 'highlights reel' of sorts.
The speaker in this text is a young toddler, which creates the gimmick that this video relies on: That a young person has strange, cute and funny ideas about movies they have seen. For example, "don't talk back to Darth Vader" is cute because it makes use of children's language as they understand the world, and is somewhat funny, possibly because of the implication that such a young child can not think of many more antagonistic actions than 'talking back' to someone. In fact, a large aspect of the entertainment on display in this text stems from the fact that, to a person well-versed in the English language, this child speaks very childishly, often stumbling over words or using non-standard forms of grammar, as well as novice level phonetic pronunciation (See: "Spacesip). This creates a sense of endearment in the reader to the young child, perhaps the reader is nostalgic about when they or someone else spoke a similar way, or they enjoy to witness the often care-free attitude of a child when using English Language.
This text links to today's other text both in subject (Star Wars) and in form: A young child talking about Star Wars. The child from this text is seemingly older, indicated by a greater grasp of linguistic techniques. One might say that the child from the above text is a toddler, whereas the child in the second text is more of an infant. In this text, which is edited, it does not seem as if there is anyone playing the part of an interviewer or interrogator, whereas in the second text, a voice who I assume to be an older female relative is prompting the child to speak. However, such sections could have been edited out in this text in order to make the child's insights seem more original, or perhaps not. Other similarities arise in that both texts feature non-standard english, as expected from such young children, though the first text merely contains simple non-standard errors, whereas the second text features heavy use of nonsensical language, particularly when imitating the bestial cry of a 'Wookie'.
Our Quote discussions
The quote was simply a twitter post (tweet) 'Sssshh! Game of thrones!'
We discussed the affordances and constraints of a medium that has features such as the 140 character limit, but also affordances such as hashtags, hyperlinks, real time updating and easily accessible archives.
We talked about how shorter quotes are often quite catchy which helps them stick in the brain.
We looked at the fact that the user uses an imperative, and why this might be. It may have been said in jest, or perhaps he was being straightforward. Perhaps he was conveying that Game of Thrones is sacred, and must not be talked over, or that he simply wishes to hear what happens on the show, or that he does not want people to tell him about what happens in the episode, or that he cannot spare the attention to read other user's tweets while the episode is on.
He may have been using a very weak form of influential power, however if the post was played for laughs than it is likely he was not trying to exert any kind of power.
Finally we discussed the context of the post. I think that the post was made on the day of the recent episode of game of thrones that aired a couple of weeks ago, as he makes another reference to a character called 'The Mountain', whose most notable appearance was in a recent episode of the show. There was also another user who tweeted about giving lessons for fictional language 'Dothraki'. There are a few other reasons why people might be talking about game of thrones, but I feel the above are most likely.
We discussed the affordances and constraints of a medium that has features such as the 140 character limit, but also affordances such as hashtags, hyperlinks, real time updating and easily accessible archives.
We talked about how shorter quotes are often quite catchy which helps them stick in the brain.
We looked at the fact that the user uses an imperative, and why this might be. It may have been said in jest, or perhaps he was being straightforward. Perhaps he was conveying that Game of Thrones is sacred, and must not be talked over, or that he simply wishes to hear what happens on the show, or that he does not want people to tell him about what happens in the episode, or that he cannot spare the attention to read other user's tweets while the episode is on.
He may have been using a very weak form of influential power, however if the post was played for laughs than it is likely he was not trying to exert any kind of power.
Finally we discussed the context of the post. I think that the post was made on the day of the recent episode of game of thrones that aired a couple of weeks ago, as he makes another reference to a character called 'The Mountain', whose most notable appearance was in a recent episode of the show. There was also another user who tweeted about giving lessons for fictional language 'Dothraki'. There are a few other reasons why people might be talking about game of thrones, but I feel the above are most likely.
Friday, 9 May 2014
A bit of revision
FREE WILL AND DETERMINISM
Determinists believe that it is possible to predict the future with certainty, even where human action is concerned. They believe that free will is merely an illusion, and that whenever we as humans think we have a choice, our answer is actually fully determined by conditions and causes.
Libertarians believe that free will does exist, that in any given situation we could have chosen otherwise. Some Libertarians consider the mind to be outside the chain of causality, which is why our thoughts cannot be caused: after all, it's not like our mind can be affected by any physical means, as the mind is as intangible as a ghost or a god. Famously, Ayn Rand opposes Libertarian idealism, calling it a threat to capitalism. She even created her own philosophy in response: Objectivism.
Compatibilists believe that Determinism and Libertarianism are not opposite, and that it is possible to believe in both determinism and free will. 'A man can do what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills.' This statement means that people do what they have a motive to do, nothing more and nothing less. You cannot choose your motives, so you cannot choose your actions because they are decided by your motives which are decided by your experiences why are determined. Compatibilism is an extremely weak conception of free will, I would not even call that free will. Incompatibilism's most common argument is that Compatibilism is merely Determinism under the guise of 'rejuggled' words.
TOLERANCE
Lord Devlin argues against tolerance by saying that it is the duty of the government to impose one shared moral system on their subjects. He argues that morality should be social, not private. He is not opposed to the quashing of conflicting beliefs, as he thinks that a single shared moral system would benefit society more than any other alternative.Some say this philosophy would cause conflict and strife from people who disagree with this system. Devlin counter argues by stating that if his recommendations were followed properly, everyone would be sharing one moral code and conflict would not arise.
However, Devlin's argument favors moral agreement over moral truth. Though his system would be, in a sense, 'fair', it would not be conducive to finding the absolute moral truth. Another criticism is that once a single moral code had been imposed, it may stifle individual and social welfare. For instance, Devlin believed that homesexuality was morally wrong. Now that laws have been passed effectively legalizing homosexuality, we have not experience a disintegration of society or moral values. This suggests that Devlin's argument was flawed.
A philosopher named Rawls believed that the only universally imposed moral rule should be one of tolerance: that we all must tolerate each other, though perhaps this should be taken more as a criticism of Devlin's argument rather than it's own argument for tolerance.
Devlin's argument also infringes on autonomy. By encouraging one particular system of beliefs, it is removing a persons ability to choose for themselves. However, autonomy is not necessarily beneficial to the masses. Some people make choices that may not benefit them as much as if things were chosen for them. This is one argument against tolerance: Why tolerate beliefs that are sup-optimal, or even negative?
John Stewart Mill argues for tolerance. In a nutshell, his argument boils down to the fact that in order to learn, we must discuss, and in order to properly discuss, there must be opposition of views. Someone to play devil's advocate as it were. He argues, for instance, that we should tolerate racists because they have unique perspectives on the subject of racism, and so they are an important member in the debates on racism.
However, Mill's argument is also flawed. Is it more beneficial to allow racists continued existence just so that we can have a varied debate? Would it not be more beneficial to discourage racism entirely, so that others do not fall into the trap of thinking it is right? Mill assumes that a racist holds such values because they have rationalized and arrived at that conclusion, but they could be entirely irrational. This would make their contributions to any debate worthless, as the underlying though processes are mangled.
Determinists believe that it is possible to predict the future with certainty, even where human action is concerned. They believe that free will is merely an illusion, and that whenever we as humans think we have a choice, our answer is actually fully determined by conditions and causes.
Libertarians believe that free will does exist, that in any given situation we could have chosen otherwise. Some Libertarians consider the mind to be outside the chain of causality, which is why our thoughts cannot be caused: after all, it's not like our mind can be affected by any physical means, as the mind is as intangible as a ghost or a god. Famously, Ayn Rand opposes Libertarian idealism, calling it a threat to capitalism. She even created her own philosophy in response: Objectivism.
Compatibilists believe that Determinism and Libertarianism are not opposite, and that it is possible to believe in both determinism and free will. 'A man can do what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills.' This statement means that people do what they have a motive to do, nothing more and nothing less. You cannot choose your motives, so you cannot choose your actions because they are decided by your motives which are decided by your experiences why are determined. Compatibilism is an extremely weak conception of free will, I would not even call that free will. Incompatibilism's most common argument is that Compatibilism is merely Determinism under the guise of 'rejuggled' words.
TOLERANCE
Lord Devlin argues against tolerance by saying that it is the duty of the government to impose one shared moral system on their subjects. He argues that morality should be social, not private. He is not opposed to the quashing of conflicting beliefs, as he thinks that a single shared moral system would benefit society more than any other alternative.Some say this philosophy would cause conflict and strife from people who disagree with this system. Devlin counter argues by stating that if his recommendations were followed properly, everyone would be sharing one moral code and conflict would not arise.
However, Devlin's argument favors moral agreement over moral truth. Though his system would be, in a sense, 'fair', it would not be conducive to finding the absolute moral truth. Another criticism is that once a single moral code had been imposed, it may stifle individual and social welfare. For instance, Devlin believed that homesexuality was morally wrong. Now that laws have been passed effectively legalizing homosexuality, we have not experience a disintegration of society or moral values. This suggests that Devlin's argument was flawed.
A philosopher named Rawls believed that the only universally imposed moral rule should be one of tolerance: that we all must tolerate each other, though perhaps this should be taken more as a criticism of Devlin's argument rather than it's own argument for tolerance.
Devlin's argument also infringes on autonomy. By encouraging one particular system of beliefs, it is removing a persons ability to choose for themselves. However, autonomy is not necessarily beneficial to the masses. Some people make choices that may not benefit them as much as if things were chosen for them. This is one argument against tolerance: Why tolerate beliefs that are sup-optimal, or even negative?
John Stewart Mill argues for tolerance. In a nutshell, his argument boils down to the fact that in order to learn, we must discuss, and in order to properly discuss, there must be opposition of views. Someone to play devil's advocate as it were. He argues, for instance, that we should tolerate racists because they have unique perspectives on the subject of racism, and so they are an important member in the debates on racism.
However, Mill's argument is also flawed. Is it more beneficial to allow racists continued existence just so that we can have a varied debate? Would it not be more beneficial to discourage racism entirely, so that others do not fall into the trap of thinking it is right? Mill assumes that a racist holds such values because they have rationalized and arrived at that conclusion, but they could be entirely irrational. This would make their contributions to any debate worthless, as the underlying though processes are mangled.
Monday, 31 March 2014
Pure genius
Genius is a strange word. It sounds like Djinni, which is a magical creature that grants wishes, and it sounds like genes, which are the blueprints for our body.
It refers to humans who are exceptionally skilled in some way. For instance, Albert Einstein is a genius of science and mathematics. Van Gogh is said to be a genius of art, and Mozart is a musical genius. Alexander the Great was a strategic genius, Genghis Khan was a tactical genius.
However, this seems somewhat controversial. As Einstein famously said: “Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”. It seems that what Einstein meant here was that different people have different inherent talents, so to judge a professional athlete's intelligence by his spelling proficiency is useless, and instead it should be their willpower and motivation you measure them by. But more on this later, first, some anecdotes:
When watching a sci-fi show with two good friends of mine who happen to be twins, there were scenes in which the idea of surrendering the lowest academically achieving 10% of children to an alien race is featured. The twins said to me as they saw this that they thought they would be part of that number, which instantly made me question my own ideas of intelligence as I realized that these two fully sentient, incredibly creative and smart human beings believed themselves unintelligent solely because they are dyslexic, and therefore academically challenged. So here I had realized that intelligence and academic achievement are two entirely separate things, despite often holding strong correlation between the two.
The second anecdote is somewhat different. It happened while I was on a camping/forestry expedition with my BTEC Level 2 classmates. Having spent the better part of a year feeling quite intellectually superior and rather out of place in this group, it still came as quite a surprise when one of my classmates responded to something I said (though not in response to me) with 'Why does Isaac think he's so much smarter than us?'. This was a situation I was definitely not prepared for, and luckily something else grabbed the attention of the group quite handily, leaving me a moment to reflect on those words. The first thing I realised was that he was right, I did think that, which was quite disconcerting for a few reasons: 1) He saw something about me I couldn't see myself, 2) it made me address why I even felt that way, and 3) It made me briefly perceive myself through the eyes of another. After that, I decided not to dwell on it too much, partly because it was like I had been caught in the act, and partly because I doubt I could try to not seem 'smarter' than that lot anyway without causing even greater offence. However, the reason I tell this anecdote is not to complain but to make the point that someone who I had looked at as dull, perhaps dim-witted even, had made a very astute personal observation. Though it should be said, there are multiple times when I have heard someone say similar things along the lines of 'Why does X think they are better at Y than me?' and I have to say usually that question is rhetorical, the reason being that the only answer can be 'Because they have reason to believe that is the case.'
The over-arching point of these stories, however, is that it is pointless for a human to look at a human and decide their approximate worth. As a creature of biology and a gently brainwashed mind, it is irrational to assume I know anything about anyone. I would claim that I am smarter than most people, but then I would say that, wouldn't I? It's very convenient for me to be able to look at people and think I am better than them, because otherwise I would likely have crippling self-esteem issues, as would anyone if they though everyone in the world was better than them at everything. Heck, I'd even go so far as to say I'm a genius, I'm just not sure what it is I'm good at yet.
And now, here comes my original point: There is no such thing as a genius. While Einstein's idea was that anyone can be a genius by their own criteria, my argument is that the very idea of a genius is just an excuse us normal people make when we realise we're not good at anything. I don't think Usain Bolt is a genius of running. I think he is a man who works almost every day of his life and shows the results. I think Albert Einstein paid a lot of attention. I think Van Gogh was simply a man whose story and passion spoke to people. Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan, considered the two greatest military leaders in history are both men who were simply told that one day they would rule, and made the decision that when that day came, they wanted to be not just people, but Great People. Heck, think of anyone in your life who you personally believe to be a genius. For me, I think of people such as Bruce Lee and Terry Pratchett. Bruce Lee, who was an actor/action hero, was in his lifetime considered even by his enemies to be the greatest martial artist of our era. Bruce Lee did not come out the womb with a black belt. Bruce Lee didn't even know what Kung Fu was before he was born. The only reason he got good was that he wanted to. If Stephen Hawking had never picked up a textbook, he would just be a sad story.
I believe it was Tiger Woods who said this: 'It's funny how the more I practice, the more often I get lucky'. For me, this rings truer than any elitist, breeding program propaganda. While I recognize that humans are animals, and there's no reason why you couldn't breed humans for specific traits in the same way we do cats and dogs, I do not believe that on a day to day basis some people are born far superior or deficient than others. I very much agree that both nature and nurture play a role in human development. I cannot agree with people attributing Einsteins prowess to his mother and father simply for birthing him, and I cannot agree with people who say Einstein (or a person of identical achievement) would have existed had even one of his parents been a different person.
When it comes to creating genius, talent is silver but practice is golden.
EDIT: I like to write about my thoughts, and most of my thoughts concern me, but I do sometimes worry if sometimes I write about information too personal for the reader. I've had people say to me a couple times I should take more care when making personal statements and things such as this but in those situations I mostly just felt as if it was more of a problem for those people then it was for me. For instance, I recently told a group of 14 people that I thought they were all just taking part in a massive 'circle jerk', essentially massaging each others egos. While I did find it embarrassing to use a somewhat vulgar metaphor, and it was on my part a 'face threatening act' in that I literally stood up and told 14 people I thought they were out of line, afterwards I was approached by some others who witnessed the event from the outside and cautioned me to be more careful in what I say to people and how I treat people. I did see their point, I definitely should have handled my emotions better and I could understand they were more worried I was going to drop myself in it one day somehow, but at the same time, I very much knew the consequences of what I was about to say, and was prepared for (and maybe even trying to achieve) a negative reaction, but felt I needed to say it anyway. However, I suppose my point is, I wish people would stop worrying about what I say, because I already do that anyway. On the other hand though, feedback from other people is the most useful resource for a developing human being, and it's good to know how other people want you to act, so that you can both consciously and subconsciously accommodate them.
It refers to humans who are exceptionally skilled in some way. For instance, Albert Einstein is a genius of science and mathematics. Van Gogh is said to be a genius of art, and Mozart is a musical genius. Alexander the Great was a strategic genius, Genghis Khan was a tactical genius.
However, this seems somewhat controversial. As Einstein famously said: “Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”. It seems that what Einstein meant here was that different people have different inherent talents, so to judge a professional athlete's intelligence by his spelling proficiency is useless, and instead it should be their willpower and motivation you measure them by. But more on this later, first, some anecdotes:
When watching a sci-fi show with two good friends of mine who happen to be twins, there were scenes in which the idea of surrendering the lowest academically achieving 10% of children to an alien race is featured. The twins said to me as they saw this that they thought they would be part of that number, which instantly made me question my own ideas of intelligence as I realized that these two fully sentient, incredibly creative and smart human beings believed themselves unintelligent solely because they are dyslexic, and therefore academically challenged. So here I had realized that intelligence and academic achievement are two entirely separate things, despite often holding strong correlation between the two.
The second anecdote is somewhat different. It happened while I was on a camping/forestry expedition with my BTEC Level 2 classmates. Having spent the better part of a year feeling quite intellectually superior and rather out of place in this group, it still came as quite a surprise when one of my classmates responded to something I said (though not in response to me) with 'Why does Isaac think he's so much smarter than us?'. This was a situation I was definitely not prepared for, and luckily something else grabbed the attention of the group quite handily, leaving me a moment to reflect on those words. The first thing I realised was that he was right, I did think that, which was quite disconcerting for a few reasons: 1) He saw something about me I couldn't see myself, 2) it made me address why I even felt that way, and 3) It made me briefly perceive myself through the eyes of another. After that, I decided not to dwell on it too much, partly because it was like I had been caught in the act, and partly because I doubt I could try to not seem 'smarter' than that lot anyway without causing even greater offence. However, the reason I tell this anecdote is not to complain but to make the point that someone who I had looked at as dull, perhaps dim-witted even, had made a very astute personal observation. Though it should be said, there are multiple times when I have heard someone say similar things along the lines of 'Why does X think they are better at Y than me?' and I have to say usually that question is rhetorical, the reason being that the only answer can be 'Because they have reason to believe that is the case.'
The over-arching point of these stories, however, is that it is pointless for a human to look at a human and decide their approximate worth. As a creature of biology and a gently brainwashed mind, it is irrational to assume I know anything about anyone. I would claim that I am smarter than most people, but then I would say that, wouldn't I? It's very convenient for me to be able to look at people and think I am better than them, because otherwise I would likely have crippling self-esteem issues, as would anyone if they though everyone in the world was better than them at everything. Heck, I'd even go so far as to say I'm a genius, I'm just not sure what it is I'm good at yet.
And now, here comes my original point: There is no such thing as a genius. While Einstein's idea was that anyone can be a genius by their own criteria, my argument is that the very idea of a genius is just an excuse us normal people make when we realise we're not good at anything. I don't think Usain Bolt is a genius of running. I think he is a man who works almost every day of his life and shows the results. I think Albert Einstein paid a lot of attention. I think Van Gogh was simply a man whose story and passion spoke to people. Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan, considered the two greatest military leaders in history are both men who were simply told that one day they would rule, and made the decision that when that day came, they wanted to be not just people, but Great People. Heck, think of anyone in your life who you personally believe to be a genius. For me, I think of people such as Bruce Lee and Terry Pratchett. Bruce Lee, who was an actor/action hero, was in his lifetime considered even by his enemies to be the greatest martial artist of our era. Bruce Lee did not come out the womb with a black belt. Bruce Lee didn't even know what Kung Fu was before he was born. The only reason he got good was that he wanted to. If Stephen Hawking had never picked up a textbook, he would just be a sad story.
I believe it was Tiger Woods who said this: 'It's funny how the more I practice, the more often I get lucky'. For me, this rings truer than any elitist, breeding program propaganda. While I recognize that humans are animals, and there's no reason why you couldn't breed humans for specific traits in the same way we do cats and dogs, I do not believe that on a day to day basis some people are born far superior or deficient than others. I very much agree that both nature and nurture play a role in human development. I cannot agree with people attributing Einsteins prowess to his mother and father simply for birthing him, and I cannot agree with people who say Einstein (or a person of identical achievement) would have existed had even one of his parents been a different person.
When it comes to creating genius, talent is silver but practice is golden.
EDIT: I like to write about my thoughts, and most of my thoughts concern me, but I do sometimes worry if sometimes I write about information too personal for the reader. I've had people say to me a couple times I should take more care when making personal statements and things such as this but in those situations I mostly just felt as if it was more of a problem for those people then it was for me. For instance, I recently told a group of 14 people that I thought they were all just taking part in a massive 'circle jerk', essentially massaging each others egos. While I did find it embarrassing to use a somewhat vulgar metaphor, and it was on my part a 'face threatening act' in that I literally stood up and told 14 people I thought they were out of line, afterwards I was approached by some others who witnessed the event from the outside and cautioned me to be more careful in what I say to people and how I treat people. I did see their point, I definitely should have handled my emotions better and I could understand they were more worried I was going to drop myself in it one day somehow, but at the same time, I very much knew the consequences of what I was about to say, and was prepared for (and maybe even trying to achieve) a negative reaction, but felt I needed to say it anyway. However, I suppose my point is, I wish people would stop worrying about what I say, because I already do that anyway. On the other hand though, feedback from other people is the most useful resource for a developing human being, and it's good to know how other people want you to act, so that you can both consciously and subconsciously accommodate them.
Friday, 21 March 2014
Gender Theory: Deficit theory and more
Way back in 1922 even the most credible scholars were usually more ignorant than today's average 11 year old, at least when it comes to matters of being fair and equal in your treatment of other human beings. Certainly if a 1920s man saw the state of society now he would cry out and curse the heavens, shocked at how women are no longer just expected to be child bearing servants . However, what we need to understand is that although today it all seems a lot more progressive, in fact we are only really one lifetime removed from the 1920s. My great grandmother was around during those times, and then she had a child who had a child who had me. That it is not a large amount of generations inbetween.
But anyway, today we are discussing language, and gender. As I said before, we are not at all far from the year 1920 even now. Back in 1922, a man named Otto Jespersen wrote a book about language. One part of that book was his evaluation of the differences between 'menspeak' and 'womenspeak'. Due to the times, the language Otto used to talk around this subject is these days rather inflammatory, but it is not his use of 'sexist' language and ideas that we are looking at. It is the points that he made that matter, not his personal opinions on the subject. Roughly speaking, Jespersen argued that the 'male' sociolect is superior to the 'female' sociolect, in that it is more dominant, more commanding, more authoritative, whereas the 'female' sociolect is far more tentative and subordinate. He believed that manguage is akin to vanilla ice cream and that womanguage is mutant vanilla ice cream, an altogether far less pleasant sounding option. The reason the theory is known as the deficit theory is because Otto believed woman's language to be deficient, objectively inferior to male language. Interestingly, I even found a website that attempts to distinguish the gender of a texts producer by analyzing the lexical choices: http://www.hackerfactor.com/GenderGuesser.php which even correctly identified from a Jespersen quote the man's gender, and quite convincingly so, at that.
http://atp.uclan.ac.uk/buddypress/diffusion/?p=736 for quotes
But anyway, today we are discussing language, and gender. As I said before, we are not at all far from the year 1920 even now. Back in 1922, a man named Otto Jespersen wrote a book about language. One part of that book was his evaluation of the differences between 'menspeak' and 'womenspeak'. Due to the times, the language Otto used to talk around this subject is these days rather inflammatory, but it is not his use of 'sexist' language and ideas that we are looking at. It is the points that he made that matter, not his personal opinions on the subject. Roughly speaking, Jespersen argued that the 'male' sociolect is superior to the 'female' sociolect, in that it is more dominant, more commanding, more authoritative, whereas the 'female' sociolect is far more tentative and subordinate. He believed that manguage is akin to vanilla ice cream and that womanguage is mutant vanilla ice cream, an altogether far less pleasant sounding option. The reason the theory is known as the deficit theory is because Otto believed woman's language to be deficient, objectively inferior to male language. Interestingly, I even found a website that attempts to distinguish the gender of a texts producer by analyzing the lexical choices: http://www.hackerfactor.com/GenderGuesser.php which even correctly identified from a Jespersen quote the man's gender, and quite convincingly so, at that.
Having researched Jespersen in some depth now I feel as if I can understand why he thinks this way. Firstly there is the societal norms of 1922 as mentioned above, but I also uncovered some more little tidbits of relavance. Firstly, is that Otto Jespersen seems to have spent very, very little time in the company of real human beings, as many of his examples are merely anecdotal. Sometimes he seems to just toss in statements of opinion and presents them as fact most apologetically: ‘She thought in blanks, as girls do, and some women’. However, Jespersen makes good points, and at the end of the day this is what should be remembered: not the somewhat embarrassing ignorance and chauvinism, but instead the language theories that remain relevant even after almost 100 years since it was written.
By looking at some examples perhaps we can clarify some of the features and techniques Jespersen identified by looking for them ourselves. In Japan, there are certain differences between men's spoken language and women's spoken language as well, but the Japanese made the effort to give this a name. Twice: onna kotoba (ε₯³θ¨θ, "women's words") or joseigo (ε₯³ζ§θͺ, "women's language").
Even this is an example of the deficit/dominance/difference theories, for example there is no phrase in japanese for 'mens words'...
http://atp.uclan.ac.uk/buddypress/diffusion/?p=736 for quotes
Friday, 7 March 2014
Texts C, E and F: Dualogs
Texts C, E and F are all dualogs. Text E is a transaction in a newsagent's, text F is an extract from an online chat log between and Text C is a conversation from a fictional children's novel. In texts E and F the speakers are using informal language and colloquialisms such as 'gonna' and 'yeah'. In text E this is likely result of certain sociolects or idiolects possessed by the speaker. Text F features non standard grammar far more, and interestingly resembles a transcript due to it's lack of punctuation and standard grammar. This is possibly because when communicating with a keyboard, the text producer wishes to balance speed with eloquence, which means they will sometimes use abbreviations and colloquialisms in an attempt to communicate more swiftly while still preserving meaning. Text C, however, is a far more formal dualog, with the two men using impeccable grammar and form while talking to each other. 'As you and I know, it was morning.' is phrased in a very 'proper' way. This is probably because as a novel for young children, the writer wished to use clear and simple terms but still aim to teach literacy and social conventions by example, whereas in the other examples it was simply two real people trying to communicate as quickly as is reasonable, whilst Text C is almost a sort of educational book intended to be extremely clear, without any motivations to rush things.
Friday, 28 February 2014
Drawing comparisons between group texts
TEXT 2: Student - Teacher Discourse
and
Text 4: Parent - Child Discourse
I've chosen these two texts because both of them feature an adult in a position of authority sharing discourse with children, who have no authority whatsoever. Both texts can be found in an earlier blog post titled 'Language + Power texts for Monday'.
Text two features a teacher, teaching a lesson to a classroom full of young students. They seem to be discussing group projects that they are working on in pairs, as evidenced by STUDENT 5 saying "We're selecting the theme that Columbia is free and...", at which point STUDENT 6 continues "We are going to write about the Spanish conquest and the slaves." though because the text is out of context it is hard to ascertain what the precise focus of the discussion is. If this is indeed a group task (that students 5 and 6 are co-operating on) it could explain why STUDENT 6 finishes STUDENT 5's sentence: To communicate that they can work together effectively by proving that they are 'on the same page' by working together to explain themselves to the teacher. If only one student had spoken, it may have given the impression that not everyone was carrying their weight, or that they are incompatible as a team, or that one student is overly eager when compared to their peers. STUDENT 5 remains silent afterwards, possibly because the teacher did not prompt them to speak. However, this is an interesting feature of language in itself: It would be chaos if every Student was expected to answer at the same time, so the Teacher is the only person in the room with complete authority to grant permission to speak out. In this case the teacher never verbally nominates anyone. It is possible that the teacher used body language to communicate this permission to students, and also possible that at the time when the teacher prompts an answer by asking a question (such as in 'They took away land and stole. What else?), the students can quickly figure out who would be the appropriate responding student by judging a number of factors, possibly including: Was the teacher talking to a specific person (looking at them while asking the question, etc), who has already recently answered a question, who feels confident to answer questions, who knows any possible answers to the question and other such contextual knowledge.
Text four is an extract from popular comedy TV series 'Outnumbered', which is a family sit-com in that it revolves around the life of one particular family. There are far less speakers in this text (MUM, BEN, and DAD).
and
Text 4: Parent - Child Discourse
I've chosen these two texts because both of them feature an adult in a position of authority sharing discourse with children, who have no authority whatsoever. Both texts can be found in an earlier blog post titled 'Language + Power texts for Monday'.
Text two features a teacher, teaching a lesson to a classroom full of young students. They seem to be discussing group projects that they are working on in pairs, as evidenced by STUDENT 5 saying "We're selecting the theme that Columbia is free and...", at which point STUDENT 6 continues "We are going to write about the Spanish conquest and the slaves." though because the text is out of context it is hard to ascertain what the precise focus of the discussion is. If this is indeed a group task (that students 5 and 6 are co-operating on) it could explain why STUDENT 6 finishes STUDENT 5's sentence: To communicate that they can work together effectively by proving that they are 'on the same page' by working together to explain themselves to the teacher. If only one student had spoken, it may have given the impression that not everyone was carrying their weight, or that they are incompatible as a team, or that one student is overly eager when compared to their peers. STUDENT 5 remains silent afterwards, possibly because the teacher did not prompt them to speak. However, this is an interesting feature of language in itself: It would be chaos if every Student was expected to answer at the same time, so the Teacher is the only person in the room with complete authority to grant permission to speak out. In this case the teacher never verbally nominates anyone. It is possible that the teacher used body language to communicate this permission to students, and also possible that at the time when the teacher prompts an answer by asking a question (such as in 'They took away land and stole. What else?), the students can quickly figure out who would be the appropriate responding student by judging a number of factors, possibly including: Was the teacher talking to a specific person (looking at them while asking the question, etc), who has already recently answered a question, who feels confident to answer questions, who knows any possible answers to the question and other such contextual knowledge.
Text four is an extract from popular comedy TV series 'Outnumbered', which is a family sit-com in that it revolves around the life of one particular family. There are far less speakers in this text (MUM, BEN, and DAD).
28/02/14 TARGET WORK (also my homework)
The target I am setting myself is to revise and retain more varied terminology to be used in evaluations and other pieces of work.
To help me achieve this I will be leaving reminders of terminology in places I will see them regularly. For instance, a sticky note on the inside of my door that could say 'Modal Verb' and then the definition written underneath. Other examples are: leaving small notes on blank pages of my notebook to be viewed in the future, or drawing a memo on my phone screen that will be updated regularly.
The reason for this is that, simply put, when I see words I can't help but read them, and words that I read more often are of course more likely to stick in my long term memory. Derren Brown (TV 'magician') is known to do a similar thing, in which he incorporates things he needs to remember into his daily routine, for example an object or note on his bedside table as he wakes up, and another one on his door and another one stuck to the bathroom mirror, and other places where he will inevitably end up having his memory refreshed. Because most of what I know is something I read somewhere, and because Derren Brown seems to be very successful in matters of the mind I thought this would be a helpful experience for me.
Edit:
I placed some reminders on my phone which were very effective at drumming correct terminology definitions into my mind. I also placed some sticky notes but they would keep falling down or curling up and became mostly a waste of time.
To help me achieve this I will be leaving reminders of terminology in places I will see them regularly. For instance, a sticky note on the inside of my door that could say 'Modal Verb' and then the definition written underneath. Other examples are: leaving small notes on blank pages of my notebook to be viewed in the future, or drawing a memo on my phone screen that will be updated regularly.
The reason for this is that, simply put, when I see words I can't help but read them, and words that I read more often are of course more likely to stick in my long term memory. Derren Brown (TV 'magician') is known to do a similar thing, in which he incorporates things he needs to remember into his daily routine, for example an object or note on his bedside table as he wakes up, and another one on his door and another one stuck to the bathroom mirror, and other places where he will inevitably end up having his memory refreshed. Because most of what I know is something I read somewhere, and because Derren Brown seems to be very successful in matters of the mind I thought this would be a helpful experience for me.
Edit:
I placed some reminders on my phone which were very effective at drumming correct terminology definitions into my mind. I also placed some sticky notes but they would keep falling down or curling up and became mostly a waste of time.
Friday, 31 January 2014
Language + Power texts for Monday
TEXT 1: POLITICAL SPEECH
TEXT 3: Interview
Alex Jones: You don’t ever wanna go there, you don’t ever wanna defend yourself, but you’ve told me privately most of the stuff, names, it’s not true, but what is going on with the women in your life?
Charlie Sheen: The goddesses? Alex the goddesses, let me just say this about the goddesses, I don’t believe the term is good enough, but when you’re bound by these terrestrial descriptions, you must use the best choice available, right?
Alex Jones: Yes
Charlie Sheen: So if you think about it, dude, it’s like I’m 0 for 3 with marriage, with never an excuse, but like in baseball, the scoreboard doesn’t lie, never has. So what we all have is a marriage of the heart. To sully or contaminate or radically disrespect this union with a shameful contract is something that I will leave to the amateurs and the Bible grippers. And I just gotta add this cos there was a whole firestorm yesterday about Brooke been a part of our crew and let me just say this, this is all I’m gonna say about it, where there were four, there are now three. Goodbye Brooke good luck in your travels, you’re going to need it, badly.
Alex Jones: So Brooke did go along with you but she’s not there now?
Charlie Sheen: No she’s not there now and we are and, I don’t know, winning, anyone? Rhymes with winning, anyone? That’ll be us. Man, didn’t make the rules. Ooops.
Alex Jones: Charlie, I’ve known you for six and a half years or so and I knew you when you were completely clean and I’ve known you since, but, the point is, now, I’ve never seen you when I was out at your house or talked to you on the phone, so energised as you are now – I mean you’re on fire as nails told the news yesterday. I mean I agree with that description.
Charlie Sheen: As I think it was nails that said, and I’m really really flattered, cos he got it right. I mean he might be nails, but I’m frikin bayonets, you know. I’m battle tested man. I’m tired, I’m so tired of pretending like my life isn’t perfect and bitchin and just winning every second and I’m not perfect and bitchin and just deliverying the goods at every frikin turn, because, look what I’m dealing with man, I’m dealing with fools and trolls, dealing with soft targets and its just, you know its just strafing runs in my underwear before my first cup of coffee because I don’t have time for these clowns. I don’t have time for their judgement and their stupidity and you know they lay down with their ugly wives in front of their ugly children and look at their loser lives and then they look at me and they say “I can’t process it” well no you never will stop trying, just sit back and enjoy the show. You know?
Alex Jones: Wow, well I am speechless. Later we’re going to get into Apocalpse Now, but what comes to mind is when we were there a few weeks ago watching it in your home theatre when Colonel Kurtz is saying “You can kill me, but you don’t have the right to judge me”
Charlie Sheen: Boom, that’s the whole movie, that’s life. That’s life, there’s nobility in that, there’s focus, it’s genuine, it’s crystal and it’s pure and its available to everybody. So just shut your traps and put down your McDonald’s, your magazines, your TMZ and the rest of it and focus on something that matters. But you can’t focus on things that matter if all you’ve been is asleep for forty years. Funny how sleep rhymes with sheep. You know. Anyway. We’re getting off topic. We don’t care anymore Alex, we don’t care. Let’s get to the work business because there’s been a lot of speculation, a lot of rumours. Imagine that with the media.
Alex Jones: Well sure, let’s go over that, because when I was there, two weeks ago at your house, you looked great, totally clean, you were working out super hard when I went and worked out with you at that private gym I mean they put you through an incredible workout, you know they’re exercising in the pool, and you’re saying “look, I’m ready to go to work. I’m ready to go right now” and then they add the lie that you don’t have a hernia, well I’ve seen your hernia, I’ve go thte same hernia in my belly button and your hernia was hurt, but again you don’t wanna defend yourself on that and, you know, tell folks the truth about it, but the point is, it seem that there are some people in your life that are trying to demonise you, they’re doing these vanity cards, you know talking about how they’re going to outlive you, it seems pretty darn aggressive.
Charlie Sheen: Yeah I didn’t care about that vanity card. In fact I went right straight home with that one and just dispelled that. And that was actually, you know, one of the few compliments that clown has paid me in freakin almost a decade. But I’m excited to get back to work and not to completely discount what you just talked about, if you bring up these turds, these little [inaudible] losers, there’s no reason to then, you know, bring them back into the fold because I have real fans, they have nothing. They have zero. They have that night and I will forget about them as my last image of them exits my beautiful home. and they will get out there and they will sell me and they will lose. And they will lose the rest of their lives as they think about me and my life the rest of their lives, so, bring me a challenge somebody, becuase, you know, it just ain’t there. Winning.
Alex Jones: But you’re ready to go to work, right now?
Charlie Sheen: Well yeah but I’m tired of being told “well you can’t talk about that and you can’t talk about that” BULL S-H-I-T. Let me just say this, there’s nothing. I just think it’s deplorable that a certain Heim Levine, that’s Chuck’s real name by the way, mistook this rock star for his own selfish exit strategy bro. Check it Alex, I embarassed him in front of his children and the world by healing at a pace that his uninvolved mind cannot process. Ok last I checked Heim, I’ve spent, I think, I don’t know, the last decade effortlessly and magically converting your tin cans into gold and the gratitude I get is this charlatan chose not to do his job, which is to write. Clearly someone who believes he is above the law. Well, you’ve been warned dude. Bring it. Alex Jones: Charlie, Everybody that I know that knows you, and I know you well, talks about how, behind the scenes, you give incredible amounts of money to charity, you help people, you give things to everybody, you go out and help firemen and schoolchidren, you are genuinely a nice guy. But you always just let people attack you and lie and the years I’ve known you and the years that people who’ve known you for decades, they say, Charlie is on fire and when he came out of what he’s been in the last seven months, he is not putting up with people trying to push him around anymore, is that fair to say?
Charlie Sheen: It’s yeah, it’s an understatement, you know it’s, I’m sorry man I got magic and I got poetry at my fingertips most of the time and this includes naps. I’m an F-18 and I will destroy you in the air and I will deploy my ordnance to the ground.
Text 4: Parent - Child discourse
BEN enters.
MUM
I mean Jake’s pretty low-maintenance for a 15 year old.
And he’s got nice friends and…
BEN
Jake’s really popular. Big kids keep coming up to me and
saying… ‘so you’re jailbait’s brother. His band’s really cool’
and stuff like that. Can I have a biscuit?
MUM is staring at him.
MUM
…..Jailbait?
BEN
Yeah… that’s his nickname
MUM
Jailbait?
BEN
Yeah. You’ve asked me that twice. Can I have a biscuit?
MUM
No. Why’s that his nickname?
BEN
I dunno…..why am I called ‘Casualty?’… or ‘Ouch’ or ‘The
Destructotron’. Actually, I’m not called ‘Destructotron’ but
I’d like to be, can I have a biscuit?
DAD
No. Get ready for school
BEN (as he exits)
Is eating caterpillars a talent?
DAD
Only if you’re a bird
MUM is deep in thought.
TEXT 5: Specialist Article
http://www.cracked.com/article_20755_5-reasons-doing-movie-stunts-harder-than-you-think.html
Good evening.
Today, our fellow citizens, our way of life, our very freedom came under attack in a series of deliberate and deadly terrorist acts.
The victims were in airplanes or in their offices -- secretaries, businessmen and women, military and federal workers. Moms and dads. Friends and neighbors.
Thousands of lives were suddenly ended by evil, despicable acts of terror.
The pictures of airplanes flying into buildings, fires burning, huge structures collapsing, have filled us with disbelief, terrible sadness and a quiet, unyielding anger.
These acts of mass murder were intended to frighten our nation into chaos and retreat. But they have failed. Our country is strong. A great people has been moved to defend a great nation.
Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America. These acts shatter steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve.
America was targeted for attack because we're the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world. And no one will keep that light from shining.
Today, our nation saw evil, the very worst of human nature, and we responded with the best of America, with the daring of our rescue workers, with the caring for strangers and neighbors who came to give blood and help in any way they could.
Immediately following the first attack, I implemented our government's emergency response plans. Our military is powerful, and it's prepared. Our emergency teams are working in New York City and Washington, D.C., to help with local rescue efforts.
Our first priority is to get help to those who have been injured and to take every precaution to protect our citizens at home and around the world from further attacks.
The functions of our government continue without interruption. Federal agencies in Washington which had to be evacuated today are reopening for essential personnel tonight and will be open for business tomorrow.
Our financial institutions remain strong, and the American economy will be open for business as well.
The search is underway for those who are behind these evil acts. I've directed the full resources for our intelligence and law enforcement communities to find those responsible and bring them to justice. We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.
I appreciate so very much the members of Congress who have joined me in strongly condemning these attacks. And on behalf of the American people, I thank the many world leaders who have called to offer their condolences and assistance.
America and our friends and allies join with all those who want peace and security in the world and we stand together to win the war against terrorism.
Tonight I ask for your prayers for all those who grieve, for the children whose worlds have been shattered, for all whose sense of safety and security has been threatened. And I pray they will be comforted by a power greater than any of us spoken through the ages in Psalm 23: "Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for You are with me."
This is a day when all Americans from every walk of life unite in our resolve for justice and peace. America has stood down enemies before, and we will do so this time.
None of us will ever forget this day, yet we go forward to defend freedom and all that is good and just in our world.
Thank you. Good night and God bless America.
TEXT 2: Student - Teacher discourse
TEACHER:
"Offensive" is a very broad term.
Specifically what is offensive?
STUDENT 1:
It's offensive that the Spanish won't
permit us to go to their country.
TEACHER:
Very good. They won't permit us to
enter. Excellent, you can give more
details. You can do that.
Is it an official letter or a letter
between friends? What do you think?
STUDENT 2:
Official.
TEACHER:
It's official, right? It has to have
respectful language, right? In a
respectful letter…"
STUDENT 3:
Crazy?
TEACHER
Very good. What other word…?
STUDENT 3:
Bad idea.
TEACHER:
Ah, it's a really bad idea, or, another
option, it's very…
STUDENT 4:
Very sad.
TEACHER:
Oh, it's very sad. That sounds right
to me. It gives a sad impression,
doesn't it? I like this very much.
STUDENT 5:
We're selecting the theme that Colombia is
free and...
STUDENT 6:
We are going to write about the Spanish
Conquest and the slaves.
TEACHER:
Oh, excellent. You too?
What else did the conquistadors do?
They were looking for slaves. But what
other really bad things did they do?
STUDENT 6:
They stole.
TEACHER:
Oh, I'm sorry, you're saying the same thing
at the same time!
They took away land and stole. What else?
STUDENT 6:
They stole people's lives.
TEACHER:
That's a big deal! People's lives!
STUDENT 7:
They killed indigenous people.
TEACHER:
Indigenous people. They killed a lot of
indigenous people. What else did they steal?
People's lives! What an image! I love it.
What else?
STUDENT 6:
The land?
TEACHER:
Land, lives…. Everything.
STUDENT 7:
Gold.
TEACHER:
Gold, 'El Dorado,' right? Do you remember
they stole gold, emeralds…. Very good.
"Offensive" is a very broad term.
Specifically what is offensive?
STUDENT 1:
It's offensive that the Spanish won't
permit us to go to their country.
TEACHER:
Very good. They won't permit us to
enter. Excellent, you can give more
details. You can do that.
Is it an official letter or a letter
between friends? What do you think?
STUDENT 2:
Official.
TEACHER:
It's official, right? It has to have
respectful language, right? In a
respectful letter…"
STUDENT 3:
Crazy?
TEACHER
Very good. What other word…?
STUDENT 3:
Bad idea.
TEACHER:
Ah, it's a really bad idea, or, another
option, it's very…
STUDENT 4:
Very sad.
TEACHER:
Oh, it's very sad. That sounds right
to me. It gives a sad impression,
doesn't it? I like this very much.
STUDENT 5:
We're selecting the theme that Colombia is
free and...
STUDENT 6:
We are going to write about the Spanish
Conquest and the slaves.
TEACHER:
Oh, excellent. You too?
What else did the conquistadors do?
They were looking for slaves. But what
other really bad things did they do?
STUDENT 6:
They stole.
TEACHER:
Oh, I'm sorry, you're saying the same thing
at the same time!
They took away land and stole. What else?
STUDENT 6:
They stole people's lives.
TEACHER:
That's a big deal! People's lives!
STUDENT 7:
They killed indigenous people.
TEACHER:
Indigenous people. They killed a lot of
indigenous people. What else did they steal?
People's lives! What an image! I love it.
What else?
STUDENT 6:
The land?
TEACHER:
Land, lives…. Everything.
STUDENT 7:
Gold.
TEACHER:
Gold, 'El Dorado,' right? Do you remember
they stole gold, emeralds…. Very good.
TEXT 3: Interview
Alex Jones: You don’t ever wanna go there, you don’t ever wanna defend yourself, but you’ve told me privately most of the stuff, names, it’s not true, but what is going on with the women in your life?
Charlie Sheen: The goddesses? Alex the goddesses, let me just say this about the goddesses, I don’t believe the term is good enough, but when you’re bound by these terrestrial descriptions, you must use the best choice available, right?
Alex Jones: Yes
Charlie Sheen: So if you think about it, dude, it’s like I’m 0 for 3 with marriage, with never an excuse, but like in baseball, the scoreboard doesn’t lie, never has. So what we all have is a marriage of the heart. To sully or contaminate or radically disrespect this union with a shameful contract is something that I will leave to the amateurs and the Bible grippers. And I just gotta add this cos there was a whole firestorm yesterday about Brooke been a part of our crew and let me just say this, this is all I’m gonna say about it, where there were four, there are now three. Goodbye Brooke good luck in your travels, you’re going to need it, badly.
Alex Jones: So Brooke did go along with you but she’s not there now?
Charlie Sheen: No she’s not there now and we are and, I don’t know, winning, anyone? Rhymes with winning, anyone? That’ll be us. Man, didn’t make the rules. Ooops.
Alex Jones: Charlie, I’ve known you for six and a half years or so and I knew you when you were completely clean and I’ve known you since, but, the point is, now, I’ve never seen you when I was out at your house or talked to you on the phone, so energised as you are now – I mean you’re on fire as nails told the news yesterday. I mean I agree with that description.
Charlie Sheen: As I think it was nails that said, and I’m really really flattered, cos he got it right. I mean he might be nails, but I’m frikin bayonets, you know. I’m battle tested man. I’m tired, I’m so tired of pretending like my life isn’t perfect and bitchin and just winning every second and I’m not perfect and bitchin and just deliverying the goods at every frikin turn, because, look what I’m dealing with man, I’m dealing with fools and trolls, dealing with soft targets and its just, you know its just strafing runs in my underwear before my first cup of coffee because I don’t have time for these clowns. I don’t have time for their judgement and their stupidity and you know they lay down with their ugly wives in front of their ugly children and look at their loser lives and then they look at me and they say “I can’t process it” well no you never will stop trying, just sit back and enjoy the show. You know?
Alex Jones: Wow, well I am speechless. Later we’re going to get into Apocalpse Now, but what comes to mind is when we were there a few weeks ago watching it in your home theatre when Colonel Kurtz is saying “You can kill me, but you don’t have the right to judge me”
Charlie Sheen: Boom, that’s the whole movie, that’s life. That’s life, there’s nobility in that, there’s focus, it’s genuine, it’s crystal and it’s pure and its available to everybody. So just shut your traps and put down your McDonald’s, your magazines, your TMZ and the rest of it and focus on something that matters. But you can’t focus on things that matter if all you’ve been is asleep for forty years. Funny how sleep rhymes with sheep. You know. Anyway. We’re getting off topic. We don’t care anymore Alex, we don’t care. Let’s get to the work business because there’s been a lot of speculation, a lot of rumours. Imagine that with the media.
Alex Jones: Well sure, let’s go over that, because when I was there, two weeks ago at your house, you looked great, totally clean, you were working out super hard when I went and worked out with you at that private gym I mean they put you through an incredible workout, you know they’re exercising in the pool, and you’re saying “look, I’m ready to go to work. I’m ready to go right now” and then they add the lie that you don’t have a hernia, well I’ve seen your hernia, I’ve go thte same hernia in my belly button and your hernia was hurt, but again you don’t wanna defend yourself on that and, you know, tell folks the truth about it, but the point is, it seem that there are some people in your life that are trying to demonise you, they’re doing these vanity cards, you know talking about how they’re going to outlive you, it seems pretty darn aggressive.
Charlie Sheen: Yeah I didn’t care about that vanity card. In fact I went right straight home with that one and just dispelled that. And that was actually, you know, one of the few compliments that clown has paid me in freakin almost a decade. But I’m excited to get back to work and not to completely discount what you just talked about, if you bring up these turds, these little [inaudible] losers, there’s no reason to then, you know, bring them back into the fold because I have real fans, they have nothing. They have zero. They have that night and I will forget about them as my last image of them exits my beautiful home. and they will get out there and they will sell me and they will lose. And they will lose the rest of their lives as they think about me and my life the rest of their lives, so, bring me a challenge somebody, becuase, you know, it just ain’t there. Winning.
Alex Jones: But you’re ready to go to work, right now?
Charlie Sheen: Well yeah but I’m tired of being told “well you can’t talk about that and you can’t talk about that” BULL S-H-I-T. Let me just say this, there’s nothing. I just think it’s deplorable that a certain Heim Levine, that’s Chuck’s real name by the way, mistook this rock star for his own selfish exit strategy bro. Check it Alex, I embarassed him in front of his children and the world by healing at a pace that his uninvolved mind cannot process. Ok last I checked Heim, I’ve spent, I think, I don’t know, the last decade effortlessly and magically converting your tin cans into gold and the gratitude I get is this charlatan chose not to do his job, which is to write. Clearly someone who believes he is above the law. Well, you’ve been warned dude. Bring it. Alex Jones: Charlie, Everybody that I know that knows you, and I know you well, talks about how, behind the scenes, you give incredible amounts of money to charity, you help people, you give things to everybody, you go out and help firemen and schoolchidren, you are genuinely a nice guy. But you always just let people attack you and lie and the years I’ve known you and the years that people who’ve known you for decades, they say, Charlie is on fire and when he came out of what he’s been in the last seven months, he is not putting up with people trying to push him around anymore, is that fair to say?
Charlie Sheen: It’s yeah, it’s an understatement, you know it’s, I’m sorry man I got magic and I got poetry at my fingertips most of the time and this includes naps. I’m an F-18 and I will destroy you in the air and I will deploy my ordnance to the ground.
Text 4: Parent - Child discourse
BEN enters.
MUM
I mean Jake’s pretty low-maintenance for a 15 year old.
And he’s got nice friends and…
BEN
Jake’s really popular. Big kids keep coming up to me and
saying… ‘so you’re jailbait’s brother. His band’s really cool’
and stuff like that. Can I have a biscuit?
MUM is staring at him.
MUM
…..Jailbait?
BEN
Yeah… that’s his nickname
MUM
Jailbait?
BEN
Yeah. You’ve asked me that twice. Can I have a biscuit?
MUM
No. Why’s that his nickname?
BEN
I dunno…..why am I called ‘Casualty?’… or ‘Ouch’ or ‘The
Destructotron’. Actually, I’m not called ‘Destructotron’ but
I’d like to be, can I have a biscuit?
DAD
No. Get ready for school
BEN (as he exits)
Is eating caterpillars a talent?
DAD
Only if you’re a bird
MUM is deep in thought.
TEXT 5: Specialist Article
http://www.cracked.com/article_20755_5-reasons-doing-movie-stunts-harder-than-you-think.html
Monday, 27 January 2014
A Paragraph about the Beyonce Advert's Synthetic Personalisation
Synthetic Personalisation
By referring to the reader as 'you', the advert creates a more informal discourse with you, causing you to feel like you are being spoken directly to and creating two things: some level of familiarity with the author, and also causing you to see them as an individual talking to you, rather than a whole business trying to sell you products. Combined with the imagery of pop-idol Beyonce showing off her phone, it can almost create the weak illusion that these words are coming from that familiar face you know and trust.
By referring to the reader as 'you', the advert creates a more informal discourse with you, causing you to feel like you are being spoken directly to and creating two things: some level of familiarity with the author, and also causing you to see them as an individual talking to you, rather than a whole business trying to sell you products. Combined with the imagery of pop-idol Beyonce showing off her phone, it can almost create the weak illusion that these words are coming from that familiar face you know and trust.
Friday, 24 January 2014
My six texts (which I now know should not all be SMS messages)
Firstly, sorry for not being in on tuesday. I misread the blog as saying you would be out on monday (which you were) but where it said tomorrow/friday I took that to mean Tuesday and Friday, rather than simply the day after you made the blog post. At least now I seem to have exhausted most of my stupidity reserves for the year.
Regardless, here are my six texts:
1) an extract from the four minute warning:
"Here are the main points again: Stay in your own homes, and if you live in an area where a fall-out warning has been given stay in your fall-out room, until you are told it is safe to come out. The message that the immediate danger has passed will be given by the sirens and repeated on this wavelength. Make sure that the gas and all fuel supplies are turned off and that all fires are extinguished. Water must be rationed, and used only for essential drinking and cooking purposes. It must not be used for flushing lavatories. Ration your food supply--it may have to last for 14 days or more.
We shall be on the air every hour, on the hour. Stay tuned to this wavelength, but switch your radios off now to save your batteries. That is the end of this broadcast."
2) Part of George Bush's presidential speech after 9/11
"And on behalf of the American people, I thank the world for its outpouring of support. America will never forget the sounds of our National Anthem playing at Buckingham Palace, on the streets of Paris, and at Berlin's Brandenburg Gate.
Regardless, here are my six texts:
1) an extract from the four minute warning:
"Here are the main points again: Stay in your own homes, and if you live in an area where a fall-out warning has been given stay in your fall-out room, until you are told it is safe to come out. The message that the immediate danger has passed will be given by the sirens and repeated on this wavelength. Make sure that the gas and all fuel supplies are turned off and that all fires are extinguished. Water must be rationed, and used only for essential drinking and cooking purposes. It must not be used for flushing lavatories. Ration your food supply--it may have to last for 14 days or more.
We shall be on the air every hour, on the hour. Stay tuned to this wavelength, but switch your radios off now to save your batteries. That is the end of this broadcast."
2) Part of George Bush's presidential speech after 9/11
"And on behalf of the American people, I thank the world for its outpouring of support. America will never forget the sounds of our National Anthem playing at Buckingham Palace, on the streets of Paris, and at Berlin's Brandenburg Gate.
We will not forget South Korean children gathering to pray outside our embassy in Seoul, or the prayers of sympathy offered at a mosque in Cairo. We will not forget moments of silence and days of mourning in Australia and Africa and Latin America.
Nor will we forget the citizens of 80 other nations who died with our own: dozens of Pakistanis; more than 130 Israelis; more than 250 citizens of India; men and women from El Salvador, Iran, Mexico and Japan; and hundreds of British citizens. America has no truer friend than Great Britain. Once again, we are joined together in a great cause—so honored the British prime minister has crossed an ocean to show his unity of purpose with America. Thank you for coming, friend.
On September the 11th, enemies of freedom committed an act of war against our country. Americans have known wars—but for the past 136 years, they have been wars on foreign soil, except for one Sunday in 1941. Americans have known the casualties of war—but not at the center of a great city on a peaceful morning. Americans have known surprise attacks—but never before on thousands of civilians. All of this was brought upon us in a single day—and night fell on a different world, a world where freedom itself is under attack."
3) I wouldn't keep doing this if I wasn't such a big fan of Terry Pratchett. Here's one from Good Omens:
“God does not play dice with the universe; He plays an ineffable game of His own devising, which might be compared, from the perspective of any of the other players [i.e. everybody], to being involved in an obscure and complex variant of poker in a pitch-dark room, with blank cards, for infinite stakes, with a Dealer who won't tell you the rules, and who smiles all the time.”
4) Jesse Pinkman, most lovable fictional meth dealer ever:
I uh… I eat a lot of frozen stuff… It’s usually pretty bad, I mean the pictures are always so awesome, you know? It’s like “hell yeah, I’m starved for this lasagna!” and then you nuke it and the cheese gets all scabby on top and it’s like… it’s like you’re eating a scab… I mean, seriously, what’s that about? It’s like “Yo! What ever happened to truth in advertising?” You know?
5) A tweet from none other than the ultra talented Jaden Smith:
"How Can Mirrors Be Real If Our Eyes Aren't Real"
6) and lastly an extract from one of Jim Carrey's stand up comedy bits:
"I enjoy fame except when I'm with my daughter. Kids stop me all the time and I don't want her to be jealous of the attention. Also, sometimes I just want to be left alone and I refuse to make rubber faces. That's when they start asking, "What's the matter, man, don't you like your job?" I say, "Yeah, I like my job. But I also like having sex, and I'm not going to do that in front of you either."
Friday, 10 January 2014
Do female Lady Gaga fans make more nonstandard spellings than male Lady Gaga fans when tweeting at #LadyGaga?
The data below is two sets of 15 tweets. The first set are all posted by twitter accounts that appear to be owned by men, and the second 15 appear to be owned by women. I will be examining each tweet and counting the number of non-standard spellings within the tweet, then afterwards looking at certain aspects such as whether or not the non-standard spelling was intentional, and how the two different groups compare to each other. These tweets were all posted within the last fortnight, at the time I am writing this. The number of nonstandard spellings is bracketed in bold after the Twitter handle of each user.
MALES: (2)
15) by Victor Young (0)
Take me to your planet (to the planet) Take me to your Venus (to the planet) Your Venus, your Venus @ladygaga #ladygaga #VENUS
14) by Thomas (0)
What to wear? 2 days left to work lol love you #goddessoflove #ladygaga pic.twitter.com/TvhrdsVKWm
13) by Tyrone Van Miguel (0)
"@ipulauu: #ladygaga So cute pic.twitter.com/YQB613kzfB"
12) by Red Beauty (0)
Mary Jane Holland at Venus style. #LadyGaga #GodessOfLove. pic.twitter.com/kn6CgUZUow
11) by Rickey (1)
Lady Gaga apologizes for 'Do What U Want' video delay http://wp.me/p30rIc-11Lc @ladygaga #LadyGaga
10) by heyitsbritboi (0)
my #ARTPOP could mean anything #LadyGaga http://instagram.com/p/iuFffVlBPS/
9) by Brandon Garcia (0)
#MonsterFollowParty I follow back everyone. #ladygaga pic.twitter.com/M2pm3Ivmc4
8) by Shay Reade (0)
RT THE LINK TO WIN THE #LADYGAGA TEE! COMPETITION ENDS TODAY! pic.twitter.com/2toL3a1BGZ
7) by BrunoGaga❤love:amo (0)
Lady Gaga says: I know I'm prettier and richer than simple princess 1 @ladygaga #ladygaga #MPN pic.twitter.com/3avpAw4w16
6) by Shaun Tuazon (1)
OMG Happy New Year to us!! #Xtina & #LadyGaga! Do What U Want (feat. Christina Aguilera) - Single by Lady Gaga http://fb.me/6l6P9YqG1
5) by Ezekiiel Germanotta (0)
In one year, only the legend, #LadyGaga. pic.twitter.com/jYlCMknGvi
4) by Francis (0)
SHARE this photo in every social network! Its an MTV Voting for the Best Fandom of 2013! 1 share= 1 VOTE ! #LadyGaga pic.twitter.com/iOWgQFU0Jb
3) by Jonathan Holmes (0)
Interested to give this sequence a go pic.twitter.com/u1tmaUCOuS #ARTPOP #ladygaga
2) by rainbow G.U.Y (0)
are you an Ariana Grande or Lady Gaga fan? go check out my items @ http://society6.com/designpassion . #arianagrande #ladygaga pic.twitter.com/8nXuV3s1M3
1) by LittleMonster4Life (0)
What Happens when your awake forever lol Lady Gaga Artpop Ball Tour Stage IDEA #ladygaga #artpop… http://instagram.com/p/ii-k6-GC0P/
FEMALES: (3)
15) by L!ttle monster (0)
#ladygaga http://instagram.com/p/i_gNiqTbZo/
14) by A R T P O P (1)
"Why are you asking me thes....." #ladygaga #lateshowwithdavidletterman https://vine.co/v/h3DipBQ6bLF
13) by Ann Mikhailik (0)
My love)) #ladygaga pic.twitter.com/KY2Ko5YYT9
12) by Caperucita †▲ (0)
Do you like #LadyGaga ?? If you're a little monster please watch Oh La La by Guido Moran… http://instagram.com/p/i_IxgXr66g/
11) by Olenka Deer (0)
How Beautiful She Isπ #LittleMonsters #ladygaga π½❤ pic.twitter.com/AGfdCBmnva
10) by Katy Perry (not the 'real' Katy Perry) (0)
Let Stop Fighting Fans! Both Are Awesome! #KatyCats #LadyGaga Retweet if you agree! pic.twitter.com/Mo1m2iEJaF
9) by A R T P O P (0)
She's the best idol ❤️ #ladygaga #BTWBallMemories https://vine.co/v/h3qrP6vz6zE
8) by kaylagermanotta (1)
OMG it's 11:11pm here I wish for #LadyGaga to win <3 #LittleMonsters were in it to win it ❤️ let's take it home pic.twitter.com/iObGXyWKbg
7) by Phi Phi O'hara (0)
I am beyond in love with this #FanArt!!!!! My two favorite parts is it has a bit of #LadyGaga which I… http://instagram.com/p/i5FOo_n4Sp/
6) by Meredith Lorimar (0)
.Are you a fan of #LadyGaga? Appreciate unusual love stories? ~ http://viewbook.at/MirrorFace ~ “Mirror Face” ~ “It’s awesome.”
5) by Miki | Lady Gaga
I'll do anything for you. That's why not being able to do anything is the toughest thing for me. #ladygaga pic.twitter.com/Nidwx1PKyj
4) by Alissia Monster (0)
MONSTERS C'MON WE NEED TO DO THIS FOR Gaga RT #Ladygaga Little Monsters 1RT=1VOTE!!! pic.twitter.com/9oaRR0wU2k pic.twitter.com/LSAn1OHWdk
3) by DjLariMori Official (0)
#ladygaga #PrayForGaga my diva perfect i love so much pic.twitter.com/ZJ10hSr9oI
2) by Little Murder (0)
My new artwork :3 @ladygaga #art #ladygaga pic.twitter.com/cA8BXs8BC6
1) by ♀Little Monster♀ (1)
"@ARTPOP37: My Suicide letter I wrote earlier good BYE Monster's I LOVE You all #PawsUp pic.twitter.com/94ySKE9346" #ladygaga @ladygaga
Interestingly my results are far different than I initially expected. There are far fewer spelling mistakes in total than I foresaw. Traditionally, the internet has been something of a petri dish for non-standard grammar to develop and thrive, and I expected that the 140 character limit that defines Twitter would push users to use more nonstandard spellings as a way of remaining within the limit. What I found was that the majority of twitter messages are largely made up of copy-pasted links. The handful of typed out words in the tweets did not usually contain any nonstandard spellings. There were many cases of nonstandard lexis, but these cannot be examined for nonstandard spelling as there is no 'standard' in the case of these words.
Two of the examples were males quoting a song title, which means it was intentional. One of them was a female who used "were" in a context where "we're" was the standard spelling. One of them was a female who referred to more than one monster as "Monster's". And finally, one of them was simply an extract that cuts off the letter 'e' from 'these'.
All in all it seem that males and females use a very similar amount of nonstandard spelling when communicating in the context of Lady Gaga, with the vast majority of everyone not using them at all, though nonstandard lexis were common.
MALES: (2)
15) by Victor Young (0)
Take me to your planet (to the planet) Take me to your Venus (to the planet) Your Venus, your Venus @ladygaga #ladygaga #VENUS
14) by Thomas (0)
What to wear? 2 days left to work lol love you #goddessoflove #ladygaga pic.twitter.com/TvhrdsVKWm
13) by Tyrone Van Miguel (0)
"@ipulauu: #ladygaga So cute pic.twitter.com/YQB613kzfB"
12) by Red Beauty (0)
Mary Jane Holland at Venus style. #LadyGaga #GodessOfLove. pic.twitter.com/kn6CgUZUow
11) by Rickey (1)
Lady Gaga apologizes for 'Do What U Want' video delay http://wp.me/p30rIc-11Lc @ladygaga #LadyGaga
10) by heyitsbritboi (0)
my #ARTPOP could mean anything #LadyGaga http://instagram.com/p/iuFffVlBPS/
9) by Brandon Garcia (0)
#MonsterFollowParty I follow back everyone. #ladygaga pic.twitter.com/M2pm3Ivmc4
8) by Shay Reade (0)
RT THE LINK TO WIN THE #LADYGAGA TEE! COMPETITION ENDS TODAY! pic.twitter.com/2toL3a1BGZ
7) by BrunoGaga❤love:amo (0)
Lady Gaga says: I know I'm prettier and richer than simple princess 1 @ladygaga #ladygaga #MPN pic.twitter.com/3avpAw4w16
6) by Shaun Tuazon (1)
OMG Happy New Year to us!! #Xtina & #LadyGaga! Do What U Want (feat. Christina Aguilera) - Single by Lady Gaga http://fb.me/6l6P9YqG1
5) by Ezekiiel Germanotta (0)
In one year, only the legend, #LadyGaga. pic.twitter.com/jYlCMknGvi
4) by Francis (0)
SHARE this photo in every social network! Its an MTV Voting for the Best Fandom of 2013! 1 share= 1 VOTE ! #LadyGaga pic.twitter.com/iOWgQFU0Jb
3) by Jonathan Holmes (0)
Interested to give this sequence a go pic.twitter.com/u1tmaUCOuS #ARTPOP #ladygaga
2) by rainbow G.U.Y (0)
are you an Ariana Grande or Lady Gaga fan? go check out my items @ http://society6.com/designpassion . #arianagrande #ladygaga pic.twitter.com/8nXuV3s1M3
1) by LittleMonster4Life (0)
What Happens when your awake forever lol Lady Gaga Artpop Ball Tour Stage IDEA #ladygaga #artpop… http://instagram.com/p/ii-k6-GC0P/
FEMALES: (3)
15) by L!ttle monster (0)
#ladygaga http://instagram.com/p/i_gNiqTbZo/
14) by A R T P O P (1)
"Why are you asking me thes....." #ladygaga #lateshowwithdavidletterman https://vine.co/v/h3DipBQ6bLF
13) by Ann Mikhailik (0)
My love)) #ladygaga pic.twitter.com/KY2Ko5YYT9
12) by Caperucita †▲ (0)
Do you like #LadyGaga ?? If you're a little monster please watch Oh La La by Guido Moran… http://instagram.com/p/i_IxgXr66g/
11) by Olenka Deer (0)
How Beautiful She Isπ #LittleMonsters #ladygaga π½❤ pic.twitter.com/AGfdCBmnva
10) by Katy Perry (not the 'real' Katy Perry) (0)
Let Stop Fighting Fans! Both Are Awesome! #KatyCats #LadyGaga Retweet if you agree! pic.twitter.com/Mo1m2iEJaF
9) by A R T P O P (0)
She's the best idol ❤️ #ladygaga #BTWBallMemories https://vine.co/v/h3qrP6vz6zE
8) by kaylagermanotta (1)
OMG it's 11:11pm here I wish for #LadyGaga to win <3 #LittleMonsters were in it to win it ❤️ let's take it home pic.twitter.com/iObGXyWKbg
7) by Phi Phi O'hara (0)
I am beyond in love with this #FanArt!!!!! My two favorite parts is it has a bit of #LadyGaga which I… http://instagram.com/p/i5FOo_n4Sp/
6) by Meredith Lorimar (0)
.Are you a fan of #LadyGaga? Appreciate unusual love stories? ~ http://viewbook.at/MirrorFace ~ “Mirror Face” ~ “It’s awesome.”
5) by Miki | Lady Gaga
I'll do anything for you. That's why not being able to do anything is the toughest thing for me. #ladygaga pic.twitter.com/Nidwx1PKyj
4) by Alissia Monster (0)
MONSTERS C'MON WE NEED TO DO THIS FOR Gaga RT #Ladygaga Little Monsters 1RT=1VOTE!!! pic.twitter.com/9oaRR0wU2k pic.twitter.com/LSAn1OHWdk
3) by DjLariMori Official (0)
#ladygaga #PrayForGaga my diva perfect i love so much pic.twitter.com/ZJ10hSr9oI
2) by Little Murder (0)
My new artwork :3 @ladygaga #art #ladygaga pic.twitter.com/cA8BXs8BC6
1) by ♀Little Monster♀ (1)
"@ARTPOP37: My Suicide letter I wrote earlier good BYE Monster's I LOVE You all #PawsUp pic.twitter.com/94ySKE9346" #ladygaga @ladygaga
Interestingly my results are far different than I initially expected. There are far fewer spelling mistakes in total than I foresaw. Traditionally, the internet has been something of a petri dish for non-standard grammar to develop and thrive, and I expected that the 140 character limit that defines Twitter would push users to use more nonstandard spellings as a way of remaining within the limit. What I found was that the majority of twitter messages are largely made up of copy-pasted links. The handful of typed out words in the tweets did not usually contain any nonstandard spellings. There were many cases of nonstandard lexis, but these cannot be examined for nonstandard spelling as there is no 'standard' in the case of these words.
Two of the examples were males quoting a song title, which means it was intentional. One of them was a female who used "were" in a context where "we're" was the standard spelling. One of them was a female who referred to more than one monster as "Monster's". And finally, one of them was simply an extract that cuts off the letter 'e' from 'these'.
All in all it seem that males and females use a very similar amount of nonstandard spelling when communicating in the context of Lady Gaga, with the vast majority of everyone not using them at all, though nonstandard lexis were common.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)