Overview: Fairclough’s unequal encounter,   status of both participants, power asymmetry.

Para 1

·         Barrister seems to have most of the power- due to role in court: instrumental power. Leads the encounter, asks questions. Non fluency features. Asks leading questions.

·         Long questions; status allows him to explain himself. Also the conventions of a court room.

·         Questions the witness as if he is the one on trial. Suggesting he wants to ‘blame’ something on Mr Neil- changes how he speaks to him.

·         Partly rehearsed speech? “you put two and two together Mr Neil and you made five…” Very structured in comparison with Mr Neil’s answers. Time to prepare. Mr Neil has no real time- however he may have decided what things he would like to answer/not answer etc…

Para 2

·         Mr Neil influential power- make himself look ‘good’/innocent to the judge: Overlaps, answers quickly, probably thought question was over, ‘no time to waste’; suggesting that he knows what he wants to say- doesn't need to think about his answer.

·         Short answers. Lower power than Barrister.

·         The two long pauses, as if Mr Neil is thinking how he wishes to proceed. The pause before, “no it’s not right.”

·         Seems to gain power throughout, starts off with fillers etc… Suggesting he is guilty? Unsure of what he is going to say/phrase it. However, about halfway through he starts to gain confidence perhaps? “[laughing quietly] that’s not true no”.  The addition of “no” at the end of many of his sentences seems to suggest that he is completely sure in what he is saying. Leaving nothing for the barrister to twist.

Although the barrister has instrumental power from his job in the court room, Mr Neil uses his influential power to try and stop the barrister from portraying him as ‘guilty’ to the judge. This unequal encounter displays the power asymmetry between participants in the courtroom due to the status of the speakers.

The barristers role in the court room means that he able to ask closed/leading questions, “…isn't that right?” and spend a long time structuring his points, whereas the witnesses language, is constrained due to his lack of power and the ‘time limit’ in which he must speak within. The barrister’s instrumental power could also suggest why Mr Neil decides not to challenge the barrister’s arguments and instead replies with short answers. An affordance of the barrister’s job is that he is able to plan what he is going to say. The barristers use of the intensifier “so” to modify “many” lowers Mr. Neil's status since it is highly likely that this was said in a patronizing tone. The barrister is probably using this modifier to portray to the audience (the judge and/or jury) that Mr Neil is in fact ‘troublesome’, perhaps to nullify Mr. Neil's testimony in order to protect his client. However this ‘mocking’ tone is not questioned/corrected by the judge, who holds the most power in the room, which could suggest that it may have not come across as ‘un professional’ or that the judge is in agreement with the fact that Mr. Neil is one for being involved with the police regularly. 

Language + Power: Theory

Erving Goffman: “The presentation of self in everyday life.”

Goffman observed that face had to do with the ‘positive social value’ that we like to maintain in social interactions. Linguistic studies of face focus on the way in which we use language to acknowledge the fact that people have face ‘needs’. 

Brown and Levinson’s model (1987) claims to provide a universal account of how face-work operates. Suggests there are 2 distinct types of face ‘positive’ and ‘negative’. Positive face reflects our desire to be accepted and liked by others. Negative face reflects our wish to have the freedom to do what we want and to have independence.

Face threatening acts (FTA’s): insults, expressions of disapproval which can harm the addressee’s positive face. Requests can also be face-threatening.

If some actions might be interpreted as a threat to another’s face, the speaker can say something to lessen the possible threat- face saving act (FSA). 

On and off record:

• On record: “give me a pen,” “Lend me your pen,” Mitigating devices to soften the demands: ‘would you,’ ‘please,’ etc…

• Off record: “Uh, I forgot my pen,” “Hemm, I forgot where I put my pen.” These statements can be ignored. 

Grouping Task:

Texts A, E, F and D all share either a primary or secondary purpose to instruct. Texts A and E are the back of a product, instructing how to use them, A being watermelon seeds and E being the back of a moisturiser for children. Strong inclusions A, E and D all use imperatives to give clear and concise information in a manner which is quick to read. For example, text A uses imperatives throughout like, ““Sow in thoroughly warmed soil”, “Cover with 1” of fine soil,” and “Keep evenly moist.” The use of imperative here instructs without confusing the reader with long winded explanations, and also as a means of saving space as the text has to fit on the back of the seed packet. Text D is the information on an ID photo card for the train. The use of imperative in this text coincides with the formal register of the information, for example, “produce it for inspection,” and “Show this Photocard when you buy a Season Ticket or Travelcard.” Which suggests a sense of importance and informs the reader of problems which may arise if you do not use the card correctly, for example, “It must not be used by any other person.” The information here has been crafted in a way which instructs with no confusion. Weak inclusion F is a charity leaflet its primary purpose being to persuade and its secondary purpose being to inform. The instructions in the poster are mitigated as they are telling the reader how to give to their charity and want to avoid making the audience feel forced to “donate”. For example, “Donate your clothes,” and “pop them into the cardboard collection bin...” These imperatives are softened by the word choices. The word donate could give the reader a sense of power, if they donated their unwanted clothing it is their choice, and they are contributing to a good cause. Whereas a synonym of donate, such as give, could make the reader feel as though they are being told what to do, which could make them less inclined to give generously which is one of the many purposes of the leaflet . And the word choice of “pop” is very friendly and creates personality as opposed to a synonym such as “put”, which could seem too ‘forceful’ for example. Text E shares this ‘gentle’ way of instructing, “Use as often as required…” this imperative does not come across as commanding, again it gives the reader the power in the situation, as they decide how often they use the cream. This coincides with the lexical field of serenity, words such as “gently,” “softens,” “nourishes,” “soft,” “sensitive,” “supple,” all are used to create a calm feel. So the imperatives must match the way in which the producer wanted to sell their product, a cream for children with “sensitive skin”. The intended audience here would be parents and so the word choices are important as they must work with the secondary purpose which is to persuade people to buy the product.

Texts B and C are both transcripts of either partly rehearsed or spontaneous speech, text B is an interview between a news presenter and president Obama, and text C is a conversation between friends. Different speech features are used in order to suit the context in which the conversations are taking place. Text B has a much more formal register than that of C and the transcript could be mistaken for writing due to the lack of non-fluency features like fillers and false starts. The formality of the two transcripts could be displayed by how the individuals address one another. Text C uses the second person pronoun “you” when referring to one another whereas Obama and the interviewer use each other’s names. This could also suggest power; usually the conventions of an interview mean that the interviewer, the one asking the questions, is the “dominant speaker”. However in this case, due to Obamas status, he is the one who leads the interview. The greeting at the beginning: “Mr.President, thank you for doing this,” differences from usual interviews where the interviewee may thank the interviewer for their time for example. This may be because of Obamas status, the news channel he appeared on here is sophisticated and the content of the interview is complex and important. Obama will be used to speaking under these circumstances and therefore has many skills when speaking to a vast audience. Whereas text C’s audience is only the two participants in the conversation who are most likely friends. This is suggested by the anaphoric referencing to earlier conversations suggesting that the two participants talk often. As well as Sally asking John, “so how's your new job going?” which, at a first glance, could be phatic talk however she then asks more meaningful questions about his job “so you've got to deal with all the moaning and complaining…” suggesting Sally cares about Johns feelings.

Texts A and B both contain specialised lexis. Text A is the back of a packet of seeds and contains words such as “fusarium wilt”, “anthracnose”, “sow” and “seedlings”. These words are specialised to the lexical field of gardening meaning the intended audience would be ‘keen gardeners’ who are familiar with these plant diseases, it also suggests that the intended audience is people who perhaps grow water melons annually as water melons would not be the easiest plant to grow and so the manufacturer is able to use complex gardening jargon on the back of their product as its highly likely that only people with a pragmatic understanding of the product would buy the seeds. At first glance text B, a transcript for an interview with president Obama, seems to appeal to a wide audience, however the use of political jargon such as, “the Senate”, “the Speaker” or “Republican” suggests that the intended audience is people who have knowledge of the subject. This could suggest that this particular audience is very narrow. Even though text B is for the news, the communication is very specific, speaking only about recent political events and avoiding any type of phatic talk, using specialised lexis such as “the bill” which would only be understood with a pragmatic understanding of the context in which this specialised lexis is being used.

Grouping by the Genre to Persuade:

Texts A, B, C and E all share either a primary or secondary purpose to persuade. Strong inclusions, A and B, are advertisements belonging to an organisation promoting specific issues; A which is smoking and B badger culling. Text E is also a strong inclusion: a blurb to a fiction book, its purpose being to persuade the audience to buy said book. All the texts use features which directly address the audience. The use of the second person pronoun in text E, “Enter-if you can bear it-the…” adds a personal touch to the blurb of the book inviting you in, which contrasts with the previous description of the book which is simply to inform . The use of a mitigated imperative here, which is softened with the embedded clause: “…if you can bear it...” makes it almost a challenge for the reader to ‘enter’ the book. This persuades well because instead of the reader feeling forced to read the book, they may feel it is their ‘choice’ and that they haven’t been persuaded at all, which possibly increases the likelihood of people buying this book. The second person pronoun in text A, “Every time you smoke your blood gets...” works effectively with the use of graphology to create a bigger impact, of perhaps horror or shock, as it is implying that ‘your’ blood will get ‘thick and dirty’ just like the disturbing image they have used. This suggests that their primary audience is people who already smoke as well as the secondary audience of putting people off who have not yet tried smoking. Text B uses the imperative: “Don’t shoot!” as the main feature of the advertisement, this possibly is used to play with the readers emotions, implying the badger is asking you not to shoot making you feel responsible and guilty especially as it is an exclamatory sentence, which could lead you to make links with similar situations, for example, innocent civilians in war situations. The entire leaflet works effectively with this first bold message. The lexical field of war has been used, for example, words such as “kill zones”, “survive” and “shoot”, end up making the badgers on the right/innocent side in this ‘war against badgers’. The bold orthography in this sentence attracts the eye to the word “shoot”. This could give the reader a sense of power, implying that they have this ‘metaphorical gun’ where they have the choice to do right or wrong. The audience for this leaflet is everyday people; it would be posted through doors where the household has no subscription, for example, to the RSPCA, meaning the bold orthography also works as a means of making sure that they pick up this leaflet as opposed to throwing it away. Weak inclusion C has a secondary purpose to persuade. It is packaging for ‘lush’ where it is promoting recycling. Its primary purpose being to inform, giving facts about the dangers of littering, for example, “Plastic waste kills up to 1000,000 sea mammals and countless fish every year…”. However, the fact that the packaging is based entirely around spreading an environmentally friendly message, including graphology such as well-known logos like the recycling symbol, is a means of persuading the audience to buy the product. Lush is well known for being environmentally friendly and many people would shop there being well aware of this fact. This means that the information about plastic waste would actually persuade the audience to buy the product. 

FACEBOOK

Here is a screenshot of a group chat between friends. This is actually the mobile version of Facebook, which means you can message people when on the go. Another affordance of Facebook messaging is, as you can see from the lovely whale, the ability to send photos to the other people in the group chat. If you are using it on your mobile you are able to take a photo instantly from your phone, which could come in handy if you want to send pictures quickly. However there are many constraints when using an online messaging service, for example; you don't actually know the tone of voice of the person who is speaking. This can become difficult if you have mis-read a message and perhaps continue to irritate the person you are messaging. For example, here Lucy has said "Awww, so cute!". Now, obviously her friends know her well enough to be sending her pictures of whales, but you could (if in a rather 'whale hating' mood) think she is being sarcastic. You don't know if she thinks this whale is cute. That is a slightly ridiculous example but perhaps in a more serious context, say if the 'boss' is messaging you, mis-reading their messages would be rather un-fortunate.

Transcription of a communication exercise:

Sam (S)

Ruby (R)

The task was to describe, using only words, an abstract drawing to your partner who could not see the drawing. Making it very difficult for you to explain, which somehow led to you using slightly peculiar instructions.

S: Okaayy, aand go!

R: Okay. Start in the top right corner.

S: Yep

R: And draw a small triangle that’s like facing diagonally. (0.2) to (0.1) to the left. (Pause) Yeah (?)/

S: /Oh yeah

R: Like, yeah

S: The points at like the top/yeah

R: yeah (0.1) Okay then down from there (0.1) continuing diagonally. There’s another one. (0.1) like medium

S: Yerp

This is just an extract from the entire transcript; it is the first few lines where you can see instantly how we accommodate our language to fit with each other. For example, several words are used as fillers but also as forms of backchanneling in order to keep the ‘instructor’ going. When I am describing one of the triangles to Sam my speech is full of pauses as I am unsure of my instructions, and I start to slow down “…diagonally. (0.2) to (0.1) to the left.(0.1)…” , Sam keeps me going by saying “yeah” underneath my speech to help me recognise that what I am saying makes sense. These ‘filler’ words are very important because they are a way of communicating a mutual understanding of what is happening and keeps each person going, if someone were to be given this transcript along with a pen and paper I highly doubt they would be able to replicate the drawing as well as Sam did because a lot of the communication was in the tone of voice etc… Another word which is used out of context is “like”, for example “…like medium” when explaining the size of the triangle. Now, medium is not a very informative/descriptive word but adding the word ‘like’ in with it helps in no way what so ever. But as you can see from the extract we both understood each other and managed to develop my instructions. ‘Like’ is used as we were both unsure of what we were saying, we did not want to be definite. I (being the instructor) would use ‘like’ as I wanted Sam to be careful and not draw instantly, which she understood. However, if I were explaining this drawing to someone else perhaps a teacher, I would use a higher register and use more words in order to describe what was happening much better. As you can see from this extract we both ended up using as little words as possible, which were very hesitant: “…diagonally. There’s another one. (0.1) like medium”, being under pressure where every word is important seemed to result in a lack of sophistication.

 

My Mini Saga

50 word short stories!- Very difficult to write.

Nans Neighbours 

I’d visit Nan every Tuesday after school; we'd sit and eat crumpets. 
'How was school?’ she’d say. I would nod.
Nan would get her broom and whack the ceiling with it.
'Blimmin neighbours’ she’d say, ‘always having parties, KEEP IT DOWN’ She’d shout. 
Nan lives in a bungalow, I’d think.