Halliday's Functions:
Instrumental -
Child uses language to express their needs, usually concerned with food, drink and comfort E.G. 'want juice'
Regulatory -
Child uses language to influence the behaviour of others, persuading/commanding E.G. 'go away'
Interactional -
Child uses language to develop social relationships and ease the process of interaction E.G. 'I love you'
Personal -
Child uses language to express personal preferences and individual identity E.G. 'I am good'
Representational -
Child uses language to exchange information, concerned with requesting facts or information
Heuristic -
Child uses language to learn of and explore the environment, this could be questions and answers E.G. 'what is the tractor doing?'
Imaginative -
Child uses language to tell stories and jokes, may also accompany play as children create imaginary worlds, or may arise from storytelling
Monday, 30 November 2015
Friday, 27 November 2015
Mini investigation: Evie 'all the things'
Evie mini investigation 'all the things' -
Title:
Investigation into how the caregivers language influences Evie's linguistic development in the 'all the things' video transcript
Introduction:
Methodology:
Analysis:
Title:
Investigation into how the caregivers language influences Evie's linguistic development in the 'all the things' video transcript
Introduction:
- Bruner's LASS theory says that by caregivers interacting with children and encouraging them to respond, it supports their linguistic development in social situations. Vygotsky supports this and says that children take in the language used by adults and apply it to their own situations, this is referred to as scaffolding.
- Theory would predict that in this investigation, i will find that the caregivers language helps to develop that of Evie's. I will therefore expect to find the caregivers language being supportive and prompting Evie for answers, as well as positive reinforcement, interrogatives,open questions, closed questions, repair and possible echoing.
Methodology:
- For my investigation i picked the 'all the things' video transcript between Evie and her Grandmother and i analysed it, counting the amount of interrogatives, open questions, closed questions and repeats/prompts from the Grandmother. This way i could look at the caregivers language with the child and how this helps develop her linguistic skills.
- Due to not knowing Evie nor her Grandmother, it made sure that i was not biased in the investigation.
- Benefits of the investigation would be that i did not have to ask for consent when using the data and also the speech from Evie was natural
- Limitations of the investigation however would be that it is not truly representative due to only having a limited data sample, being one recording. Also since the Grandmother was recording, she was aware of what she was saying which could have resulted in demand characteristics.
Analysis:
- In total, Evie's Grandmother asked 42 interrogatives, 19 open questions, 22 closed questions and 10 repeats/prompts.
- By asking so many interrogatives/ open questions it allows Evie to expand on her point and develop her language by speaking in more detail and depth.
- This also shows that her Grandmother initiates conversation with Evie which would help her also do the same in future conversations as she will take it on board, this is scaffolding.
Conclusion and Evaluation:
- As i only had a small pool of data there was of course massive limitations in what i could do and also what i could find as it wasn't truly representative.
- My findings proved my hypothesis since Evie's Grandmother did ask many interrogatives, open and closed questions and repairs/prompts which helps develop Evie's language.
Friday, 19 June 2015
Twitter Investigation
Investigating Language on Twitter -
Introduction:
I think that men are more likely to show dominance than women in their tweets
- can study women's language feature (empty adjectives, uncertainty features) and mens dominance (use of imperatives etc)
- links to Robin Lakoff's deficit theory
Methodology:
-We picked two celebrities of each gender and picked every fifth tweet
- It is not biased as we don't know the person and picked the tweets at random
- Benefits: don't have to ask for consent because they're tweeting publicly
- Limitations: not truly representative as only got 10 tweets, small sample
Analysis:
- Taylor (female)
showed a higher amount of empty adjectives and uncertainty feature
- Taylor uses 'so much' which is two uncertainty feature however do we count as one as they are used and work together?
- Zac (male)
uses higher amount of multi modality pictures and also imperatives
(we did average per tweet as two of Taylor's tweets were retweets so we didn't count them)
- This could show that women are more descriptive in their writing as opposed to men who are more concise. Could suggest men are more dominant because of imperatives
Conclusion and Evaluation:
- massive limitations as only a small pool of data
- finding prove our hypothesis because men use more imperatives and women use more empty adjectives
For the Future:
- choose larger pool of data
- keep random DONT cherry pick
Introduction:
I think that men are more likely to show dominance than women in their tweets
- can study women's language feature (empty adjectives, uncertainty features) and mens dominance (use of imperatives etc)
- links to Robin Lakoff's deficit theory
Methodology:
-We picked two celebrities of each gender and picked every fifth tweet
- It is not biased as we don't know the person and picked the tweets at random
- Benefits: don't have to ask for consent because they're tweeting publicly
- Limitations: not truly representative as only got 10 tweets, small sample
Analysis:
- Taylor (female)
showed a higher amount of empty adjectives and uncertainty feature
- Taylor uses 'so much' which is two uncertainty feature however do we count as one as they are used and work together?
- Zac (male)
uses higher amount of multi modality pictures and also imperatives
(we did average per tweet as two of Taylor's tweets were retweets so we didn't count them)
- This could show that women are more descriptive in their writing as opposed to men who are more concise. Could suggest men are more dominant because of imperatives
Conclusion and Evaluation:
- massive limitations as only a small pool of data
- finding prove our hypothesis because men use more imperatives and women use more empty adjectives
For the Future:
- choose larger pool of data
- keep random DONT cherry pick
transcript
Geordie Shore Transcript - Language and Gender
R & V: [ laughs ]
I: will we be seeing a geordie wedding this season(.)or coming up
V: (1)no(.) we're not um i think(.) we'll(.)in(.)oh(.)
R: you lost for words babe
V: [ laughs ]
R: is she feeling alright(.) are you feeling alright(.)
V: i'm not lost for words im just tryna work out|how to put it
R: |yeah|ok
V: |shutup
R: i can't believe this like
V: |we don't have a wedding
R: |when she's on camera this never happens
R & V: [ laughs ]
I: will we be seeing a geordie wedding this season(.)or coming up
V: (1)no(.) we're not um i think(.) we'll(.)in(.)oh(.)
R: you lost for words babe
V: [ laughs ]
R: is she feeling alright(.) are you feeling alright(.)
V: i'm not lost for words im just tryna work out|how to put it
R: |yeah|ok
V: |shutup
R: i can't believe this like
V: |we don't have a wedding
R: |when she's on camera this never happens
Thursday, 16 April 2015
Short passage of a love story
It was 8:34am. She rushed into the office cradling her work and holding holding her coffee tightly between her chin and the ring binder. She attempted to open the door single handedly. She succeeded. Just.
She battled her way through the hoards of high heels and high egos to eventually get onto the home stretch of reaching her office. As she approached it, a tall silhouette of a man blocked her path, he took her by surprise and before she could even adjust her gaze, the man bumped straight into her, her Starbucks laté exploded all down the front of her new white blouse as she also dropped mountain of work.
"Shit I'm so sorry" said the unfamiliar face.
Without even looking up she barked "do you even realise who I -"
Their eyes caught one another as they both reached for the ring binder. His hand brushed hers in an attempt to rescue the laté soaked work. She got a better look of the tall, dark and handsome stranger who 5 minutes ago ruined her blouse. She suddenly no longer cared for the blouse.
She stuttered "it was an accident, don't wor-"
"Let me make it up to you, this evening?" He bravely proclaimed.
"What do you have in mind?" She replied.
"You'll just have to wait and see, meet me in the lobby at 7" he said, the corners of his mouth slightly raising.
She straightened herself up whilst beginning to walk away "7, lobby, got it"
As she got closer to her office the thought dawned on her, she never even got his name , as she began to turn around on her heel she said "I never even got your name"
The man had disappeared.
She battled her way through the hoards of high heels and high egos to eventually get onto the home stretch of reaching her office. As she approached it, a tall silhouette of a man blocked her path, he took her by surprise and before she could even adjust her gaze, the man bumped straight into her, her Starbucks laté exploded all down the front of her new white blouse as she also dropped mountain of work.
"Shit I'm so sorry" said the unfamiliar face.
Without even looking up she barked "do you even realise who I -"
Their eyes caught one another as they both reached for the ring binder. His hand brushed hers in an attempt to rescue the laté soaked work. She got a better look of the tall, dark and handsome stranger who 5 minutes ago ruined her blouse. She suddenly no longer cared for the blouse.
She stuttered "it was an accident, don't wor-"
"Let me make it up to you, this evening?" He bravely proclaimed.
"What do you have in mind?" She replied.
"You'll just have to wait and see, meet me in the lobby at 7" he said, the corners of his mouth slightly raising.
She straightened herself up whilst beginning to walk away "7, lobby, got it"
As she got closer to her office the thought dawned on her, she never even got his name , as she began to turn around on her heel she said "I never even got your name"
The man had disappeared.
Tuesday, 14 April 2015
Language and Gender theories
Language and Gender theories
Dominance theory -
The dominance theory, associated with Don Zimmerman, Candace West, Pamela Fisherman, is the theory that men are more likely to interrupt than women. This concludes that due to being more interruptive they are more dominant as opposed to women, on the other hand interruptions could possibly "reflect interest and involvement". Pamela Fisherman goes on to say how conversations between sexes can sometimes fail, not because of women, but because of the way men respond, or don't respond.
Difference theory - Deborah Tannen
The difference theory, is the idea that women's and men's speech isn't the same as each other. She says that there are six different contrasts that represent male and female language.
Status vs. Support - Men grow up trying not to let others dominate them in speech while women like to gain support for their ideas
Independence vs. Intimacy - Men tend to focus on independence while women think in terms of closeness and support and struggle to preserve intimacy
Advice vs. Understanding - To many men a complaint is a challenge to find a solution, e.g. woman not feeling well tells husband, husband says to go to the doctor while the woman wanted sympathy
Information vs. Feelings - Men more likely to tell information while women say their feelings
Orders vs. Proposals - Men more likely use and also prefer to hear direct imperatives, while women are usually indirect
Conflict vs. Compromise - Men more likely to assert themselves as opposed to women
Jennifer Coates and Deborah Jones -
Women's conversations are split into four different categories.
House talk - exchange of information and resources connected with the female role
Scandal- judging other people, especially women
Bitching - women's anger at their inferior status, they only 'bitch' to other women and in private, they don't expect change but just want to be understood
Chatting - a form of 'gossip'
Bibliography -
http://www.universalteacher.org.uk/lang/gender.htm#dominance
Dominance theory -
The dominance theory, associated with Don Zimmerman, Candace West, Pamela Fisherman, is the theory that men are more likely to interrupt than women. This concludes that due to being more interruptive they are more dominant as opposed to women, on the other hand interruptions could possibly "reflect interest and involvement". Pamela Fisherman goes on to say how conversations between sexes can sometimes fail, not because of women, but because of the way men respond, or don't respond.
Difference theory - Deborah Tannen
The difference theory, is the idea that women's and men's speech isn't the same as each other. She says that there are six different contrasts that represent male and female language.
Status vs. Support - Men grow up trying not to let others dominate them in speech while women like to gain support for their ideas
Independence vs. Intimacy - Men tend to focus on independence while women think in terms of closeness and support and struggle to preserve intimacy
Advice vs. Understanding - To many men a complaint is a challenge to find a solution, e.g. woman not feeling well tells husband, husband says to go to the doctor while the woman wanted sympathy
Information vs. Feelings - Men more likely to tell information while women say their feelings
Orders vs. Proposals - Men more likely use and also prefer to hear direct imperatives, while women are usually indirect
Conflict vs. Compromise - Men more likely to assert themselves as opposed to women
Jennifer Coates and Deborah Jones -
Women's conversations are split into four different categories.
House talk - exchange of information and resources connected with the female role
Scandal- judging other people, especially women
Bitching - women's anger at their inferior status, they only 'bitch' to other women and in private, they don't expect change but just want to be understood
Chatting - a form of 'gossip'
Bibliography -
http://www.universalteacher.org.uk/lang/gender.htm#dominance
Friday, 13 March 2015
Fairclough's unequal encounters
Fairclough's unequal encounters
Fairclough believes that in any conversation there is always a more dominant/powerful speaker.
Maureen: well (.) there's a problem (1) he couldn't ||get them ||
Juliane: ||you're joking||
Juliane interrupts Maureen which asserts her power and shows that she is the more dominant speaker because she is able to talk over Maureen and she straight away stops. The fact that Juliane uses the declarative and determiner "you're" makes it seem as though not getting the tickets is being blamed on Maureen and made out as though it's a big deal. It comes across in a harsh tone, although possibly may have been said differently, which suggests that she has the power to blame Maureen and knows that Maureen won't say anything back. This shows that Fairclough was correct when saying that there is always a more dominant speaker because even though they're friends one of them is still more powerful.
Fairclough believes that in any conversation there is always a more dominant/powerful speaker.
Maureen: well (.) there's a problem (1) he couldn't ||get them ||
Juliane: ||you're joking||
Juliane interrupts Maureen which asserts her power and shows that she is the more dominant speaker because she is able to talk over Maureen and she straight away stops. The fact that Juliane uses the declarative and determiner "you're" makes it seem as though not getting the tickets is being blamed on Maureen and made out as though it's a big deal. It comes across in a harsh tone, although possibly may have been said differently, which suggests that she has the power to blame Maureen and knows that Maureen won't say anything back. This shows that Fairclough was correct when saying that there is always a more dominant speaker because even though they're friends one of them is still more powerful.
PEE Paragraph -power
Plan -
Overview - describing and explaining the text and what is happening, starting with 'because' or 'although'
PEE paragraph 1: Barrister intimidating Mr Neil as he has more instrumental and influential power, obvious signs that Mr Neil is battling for status, quotes "you cant remember whether they came to see you or not?" "I don't think they did no" - Goffman's face theory, Wareing's instrumental/influential power - political, Fairclough's unequal encounters - power asymmetry
Overview -
Because of the Barristers instrumental power, he appears to also have more influential power as opposed to Mr Neil, the power that the Barrister displays is reinforced by the judges. This shows a clear indication of power asymmetry between the participant. Despite the fact that Mr Neil doesn't have any instrumental power, there are obvious signs that there is a battle for status.
PEE Paragraph 1 -
"You cant remember whether they came to see you or not?". The Barrister's use of the personal pronoun 'you' displays influential power as it comes across as being intimidating which would make Mr Neil feel belittled. He uses his instrumental power to make Mr Neil feel of little value, this is because he is higher up. In a typical courtroom layout, the Barrister would be stood in front f the defendant which could also show a clear power asymmetry between the two participants. The defendant, in this case being Mr Neil is currently the low power participant in this spoken discourse as he is being patronised, perhaps the tone of the Barristers voice is harsh and probably making him feel uncomfortable. Mr Neil then interrupt the Barrister by saying "I don't think they did no", this could perhaps indicate that Mr Neil is battling for status as he is trying to become the more power participant despite the fact that he has neither the instrumental or the influential power that the Barrister upholds. It could also suggest that by Mr Neil not giving the Barrister a straight answer he is trying to avoid the question and raise his status by not being imposed on which is one Goffman's face theories.
Overview - describing and explaining the text and what is happening, starting with 'because' or 'although'
PEE paragraph 1: Barrister intimidating Mr Neil as he has more instrumental and influential power, obvious signs that Mr Neil is battling for status, quotes "you cant remember whether they came to see you or not?" "I don't think they did no" - Goffman's face theory, Wareing's instrumental/influential power - political, Fairclough's unequal encounters - power asymmetry
Overview -
Because of the Barristers instrumental power, he appears to also have more influential power as opposed to Mr Neil, the power that the Barrister displays is reinforced by the judges. This shows a clear indication of power asymmetry between the participant. Despite the fact that Mr Neil doesn't have any instrumental power, there are obvious signs that there is a battle for status.
PEE Paragraph 1 -
"You cant remember whether they came to see you or not?". The Barrister's use of the personal pronoun 'you' displays influential power as it comes across as being intimidating which would make Mr Neil feel belittled. He uses his instrumental power to make Mr Neil feel of little value, this is because he is higher up. In a typical courtroom layout, the Barrister would be stood in front f the defendant which could also show a clear power asymmetry between the two participants. The defendant, in this case being Mr Neil is currently the low power participant in this spoken discourse as he is being patronised, perhaps the tone of the Barristers voice is harsh and probably making him feel uncomfortable. Mr Neil then interrupt the Barrister by saying "I don't think they did no", this could perhaps indicate that Mr Neil is battling for status as he is trying to become the more power participant despite the fact that he has neither the instrumental or the influential power that the Barrister upholds. It could also suggest that by Mr Neil not giving the Barrister a straight answer he is trying to avoid the question and raise his status by not being imposed on which is one Goffman's face theories.
Friday, 27 February 2015
Essay plan
Essay plan - paragraph 1 and summary
Throughout text CC, it is made apparent that Juliane is the more dominant speaker. Maureen's use of negative face, makes Juliane feel more powerful as Maureen lowers her own status to avoid the face threatening acts. When Maureen says 'do you (.) can you' she flouts the maxim of manner because she doesn't ask the question, she merely hints at it, also the use of the pause makes it clear that Maureen is nervous asking and she then repairs the sentence to change it to 'can' which lowers her status even more by asking a question. She does this also to avoid the face threatening acts, which forces us to look at the implicature using our pragmatic understanding. Fairclough believes that there is always a more dominant speaker in any conversation, and text CC supports his theory. Juliane interrupts Maureen twice during the conversation possibly to assert her dominance and reduce Maureen's whilst belittling her. The declarative 'you're' in 'you're joking' makes it seem as though Juliane thinks it's Maureen's fault as opposed to the man she tried to get the tickets off of. This implies that Juliane is more powerful because she directly addresses Maureen and isn't worried about what she would reply as she knows she is the dominant person in the conversation and Maureen isn't.
Because of Maureen's use of negative face whilst talking to Juliane to avoid the face threatening acts, Juliane is much more powerful in the conversation and by far the more dominant speaker. This shows that Fairclough was correct when he said that in a conversation there is always someone more dominant, therefore being unequal encounters.
Throughout text CC, it is made apparent that Juliane is the more dominant speaker. Maureen's use of negative face, makes Juliane feel more powerful as Maureen lowers her own status to avoid the face threatening acts. When Maureen says 'do you (.) can you' she flouts the maxim of manner because she doesn't ask the question, she merely hints at it, also the use of the pause makes it clear that Maureen is nervous asking and she then repairs the sentence to change it to 'can' which lowers her status even more by asking a question. She does this also to avoid the face threatening acts, which forces us to look at the implicature using our pragmatic understanding. Fairclough believes that there is always a more dominant speaker in any conversation, and text CC supports his theory. Juliane interrupts Maureen twice during the conversation possibly to assert her dominance and reduce Maureen's whilst belittling her. The declarative 'you're' in 'you're joking' makes it seem as though Juliane thinks it's Maureen's fault as opposed to the man she tried to get the tickets off of. This implies that Juliane is more powerful because she directly addresses Maureen and isn't worried about what she would reply as she knows she is the dominant person in the conversation and Maureen isn't.
Because of Maureen's use of negative face whilst talking to Juliane to avoid the face threatening acts, Juliane is much more powerful in the conversation and by far the more dominant speaker. This shows that Fairclough was correct when he said that in a conversation there is always someone more dominant, therefore being unequal encounters.
Grouping texts
Grouping texts:
Grouping 1 - imperatives
Texts C,D,E and F all have imperatives in them. Text C is a stronger inclusion since it is a label from a sparkling water bottle, therefore it features many imperatives such as 'consume', 'keep cool' and 'see bottle neck'. Text C also has mitigated imperatives which are weaker since it says 'please return' and 'please check'. Text E, a leaflet persuading and informing about 'blueislands.com' also has imperatives; 'just visit' and 'see website for details'. They want you to be persuaded to apply for the chance to win a holiday. By writing 'win a luxury trip to Jersey' which is also an imperative 'win', it makes the reader feel addressed so more people would try to win it. Text D which is a conversation on iMessage between two friends is a weaker inclusion, this is because it has a cloaked imperative. 'I needed reassuring' is said by person C as they are wanting person S to reassure them, so subtly hints at it as opposed to saying 'reassure me' which would come across much more demanding. My last text, which is also a weaker inclusion is text F, an email from the Royal Bank of Scotland early career team. 'We would like you to participate in the next stage of our selection process...' This is also a cloaked imperative because rather than saying 'do the next part' they phrase it to make the person it's addressed to feel like they have a choice, when really they don't because if they don't take part in the next stage they won't get the apprenticeship, and if the person didn't want it, they wouldn't have applied for it in the first place.
Grouping 2 - formality
All three texts, A, B and F have different levels of formality. Text D is very informal as it features many colloquialisms, 'gunna' instead of 'going to' which is also elision. Also missing out the word 'are' when saying 'what time we going tomorrow' is elliptical construction. This happens a lot particularly with younger people over iMessage and instant messaging because it is easier and since it is semi-synchronous (because it's not spoken however people read it almost straight away) it is much quicker to do so in order to get a quicker response and as person S is 'about to go to bed' they may be rushing to get a reply. Text F is the complete opposite to text D as it is very formal. Written by the early career team of the Royal Bank of Scotland, it is expected to be formal. 'This message is as follows; Dear Sophie', this is not something you would see in a conversation between friends since it is over email and therefore would have been thought through and re-read a few times before initially sending, this Is synchronous text. Text A which is a mini saga, I also think is quite informal because it says the phrase 'daft old woman', the use of the lexis daft makes the text feel informal because it is a slang term, and due to it being positioned as the very first word of the mini saga, the rest of the text is read in a rather informal tone. Furthermore because it has to be written in exactly 50 words they use elision 'could've' instead of 'could have' which is more informal, so that they can fit it in.
Grouping 3 - lexical field
My last grouping is lexical field, the three texts A, C and E include different lexical fields. Text A, which is a mini saga has a lexical field of bereavement as it features the words 'grave', 'lost' and 'pining' which all relate to bereaving someone's or something's death. The word 'weak' makes you think that someone is grieving so much that they physically and mentally become weak and that it breaks them down. Text C which is a wrapper from around a cranberry and raspberry sparkling water bottle has a lexical field of being healthy because of the words 'mineral' and 'natural' and informs you of the 'nutrition information'. These words relate to being healthy because the words 'natural' amd 'mineral' have connotations of purity and freshness. Using such words make the product more appealing and appetising to shoppers because they will see it as being good for them, despite all the sugar in it to make it sparkling and sweet. My last text to include in this grouping is text E; a travel leaflet from 'blueislands.com', it has a lexical field of holidays as it contains the words 'island', 'hotel' and 'luxurious' makes you imagine a sunny holiday which would help to persuade the target audience, most likely a couple as it's for a two night stay at a manor house and doesn't advertise any children's activities. 'A world away in just an hour!' also makes you imagine a different world and makes you think you can't find a holiday like it, implying that it's 'out of this world'.
Grouping 1 - imperatives
Texts C,D,E and F all have imperatives in them. Text C is a stronger inclusion since it is a label from a sparkling water bottle, therefore it features many imperatives such as 'consume', 'keep cool' and 'see bottle neck'. Text C also has mitigated imperatives which are weaker since it says 'please return' and 'please check'. Text E, a leaflet persuading and informing about 'blueislands.com' also has imperatives; 'just visit' and 'see website for details'. They want you to be persuaded to apply for the chance to win a holiday. By writing 'win a luxury trip to Jersey' which is also an imperative 'win', it makes the reader feel addressed so more people would try to win it. Text D which is a conversation on iMessage between two friends is a weaker inclusion, this is because it has a cloaked imperative. 'I needed reassuring' is said by person C as they are wanting person S to reassure them, so subtly hints at it as opposed to saying 'reassure me' which would come across much more demanding. My last text, which is also a weaker inclusion is text F, an email from the Royal Bank of Scotland early career team. 'We would like you to participate in the next stage of our selection process...' This is also a cloaked imperative because rather than saying 'do the next part' they phrase it to make the person it's addressed to feel like they have a choice, when really they don't because if they don't take part in the next stage they won't get the apprenticeship, and if the person didn't want it, they wouldn't have applied for it in the first place.
Grouping 2 - formality
All three texts, A, B and F have different levels of formality. Text D is very informal as it features many colloquialisms, 'gunna' instead of 'going to' which is also elision. Also missing out the word 'are' when saying 'what time we going tomorrow' is elliptical construction. This happens a lot particularly with younger people over iMessage and instant messaging because it is easier and since it is semi-synchronous (because it's not spoken however people read it almost straight away) it is much quicker to do so in order to get a quicker response and as person S is 'about to go to bed' they may be rushing to get a reply. Text F is the complete opposite to text D as it is very formal. Written by the early career team of the Royal Bank of Scotland, it is expected to be formal. 'This message is as follows; Dear Sophie', this is not something you would see in a conversation between friends since it is over email and therefore would have been thought through and re-read a few times before initially sending, this Is synchronous text. Text A which is a mini saga, I also think is quite informal because it says the phrase 'daft old woman', the use of the lexis daft makes the text feel informal because it is a slang term, and due to it being positioned as the very first word of the mini saga, the rest of the text is read in a rather informal tone. Furthermore because it has to be written in exactly 50 words they use elision 'could've' instead of 'could have' which is more informal, so that they can fit it in.
Grouping 3 - lexical field
My last grouping is lexical field, the three texts A, C and E include different lexical fields. Text A, which is a mini saga has a lexical field of bereavement as it features the words 'grave', 'lost' and 'pining' which all relate to bereaving someone's or something's death. The word 'weak' makes you think that someone is grieving so much that they physically and mentally become weak and that it breaks them down. Text C which is a wrapper from around a cranberry and raspberry sparkling water bottle has a lexical field of being healthy because of the words 'mineral' and 'natural' and informs you of the 'nutrition information'. These words relate to being healthy because the words 'natural' amd 'mineral' have connotations of purity and freshness. Using such words make the product more appealing and appetising to shoppers because they will see it as being good for them, despite all the sugar in it to make it sparkling and sweet. My last text to include in this grouping is text E; a travel leaflet from 'blueislands.com', it has a lexical field of holidays as it contains the words 'island', 'hotel' and 'luxurious' makes you imagine a sunny holiday which would help to persuade the target audience, most likely a couple as it's for a two night stay at a manor house and doesn't advertise any children's activities. 'A world away in just an hour!' also makes you imagine a different world and makes you think you can't find a holiday like it, implying that it's 'out of this world'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)