Lexis;
Skint;
This clip interviews different
people about their daily life being unemployed. Vernon, an unemployed
middle-aged man, uses simple words throughout his dialogue. An example would be
‘it’s not nice’. By using the simple adjective ‘nice’ it shows the use of an
empty adjective. This contrasts with Lakoff’s (1975) theory that women use more
empty adjectives than men. It was in an informal context; therefore this may be
why he uses an empty adjective. During the interaction between the interviewer
and Vernon, the interviewer shows that they are the powerful participant. For
example, he uses the discourse marker of subject change, ‘how much in all do
you think you owe’. This shows that they are the most powerful participant because
they are controlling the conversation as they want information from the person
being interviewed. However, due to the context of this interaction that the
interviewer has been hired to asked questions needed for the program.
Therefore, this may be why the interviewer shows more power. Also, the
interviewer may potentially be in a higher social class than Vernon, and
therefore he has access to more complex syntax because of the environment he
was brought up in. Julie, an unemployed mother in Birmingham, uses the wrong
lexical choice. This is shown when she says ‘definitely get me money’s worth’.
She has used the reflexive pronoun when she says ‘me’ instead of the personal possessive
pronoun ‘my’. This could suggest that she is uneducated and unable to realise
when she has used the wrong pronoun. During the transcript, they use subject
specific lexis of the pawn shop. For example, ‘buy backs’, ‘they are stored’
and ‘go on the shop floor’. The context of the interaction shows that Mary is
talking to the camera man, therefore this may suggest that she is emphasising
the lexis in case the camera man has no knowledge of the shop. This gives
evidence that as the unemployed people gain a job, their language changes
because of the environment they are in and therefore starts to become more
formal and use correct lexis.
Educating Essex;
An
underperforming school in Essex is being filmed in a ‘fly on the wall’ style. In
the Maths class the teacher used low frequency lexis such as ‘area of a
circle’, ‘circumference of a circle formula’. This shows that the teacher has a
high level of education. However, he may use more simple lexis depending on the
context. He is teaching a year 11 class in a school therefore he will have to
use lexis that they will understand rather than what students at degree level
may understand. This shows the difference between people with a profession and
the unemployed people because the unemployed people do not have a choice of
what lexis they can use whereas people with a profession can adapt their
language to the context. During the interaction the teacher uses imperatives
when speaking to the students. An example would be ‘you’re gonna do’. This
shows that the teacher communicates exactly what he wants the class to do. This
is also evidence that the teacher is the most powerful participant in the
interaction. Relating to power theory, the teacher has instrumental power as he
is a teacher and therefore holds the responsibility over the students. Also, the teacher is male and therefore
relating to power theory that males are more powerful than females and
therefore has a different lexical choice compared to a female teacher. At
certain points in the transcript the teacher uses the lexis ‘guys’. This may
suggest that he is trying to change his lexical choice in order to ‘fit in’
with the students. This may be because he wants to build a stronger
relationship with the
Students.
Grammar
Skint;
Throughout the transcript, two
unemployed people use a lot of conjunctions. For example, ‘and’ ‘yeah and it
come’, ‘and the money come’. This shows that they have to use compound syntax
in order to communicate their point because they do not have complex lexis to use
in replacement for ‘and’. This may suggest that they have a low level of
education because they only use simple lexis. Also, during the interaction they
overlap each other when saying ‘and the money come’. This suggests that they do
not take part in adjacency pairs. However, because they are taking part in
spontaneous speech, and feel under pressure to continue speaking to the camera
man, these conjunctions may act as a filler to allow them time to think about
what else they can say.
The unemployed family make
grammatical errors during their spontaneous speech. An example would be ‘and
the money come’. This is an error because they use the present tense verb
‘come’. This is the wrong tense usage and therefore should have been the past
tense ‘came’. This shows that they have a low level of education and do not use
complex utterances. Also, it could suggest that they also have an idiolect and
that the people around them have influenced them to speak in this way. Within
the family, the Father is the most powerful participant. This is shown when he
says ‘as it was I was owed some money’, by using the pronoun ‘I’ it shows that
he does not include his wife in the statement and therefore shows his power
over her. Another way of showing that they have a low level of education is
when they pronounce certain words. For example ‘appy birfday’ and ‘sayin’. On
each of these words, the letter ‘h’ and ‘g’ have been dropped. This may also
show their idiolect as it is the way they pronounce the words rather than their
misunderstanding of the language. However, Trudgill (1974) states that men use
more non-standard English whereas women were the opposite; this transcript
shows evidence for this. The language used shows the informality of the
context. For example, Julie uses the tag question ‘um five or six quid isn’t
it’. This shows that she does not feel the need to use formal language in the
situation and therefore does not hesitate to ask the camera man. This could
also relate to Lakoff’s (1975) gender theory that women tend to use more tag
questions during an interaction than men do. This is because women would rather
create a rapport with the recipient whereas men prefer to speak in a
competitive way. This relates to Deborah Tannen’s (1990) theory of gender.
Educating Essex;
Throughout
the interaction between the students and the teacher, the teacher uses
colloquial language. For example, ‘gonna’. This suggests that the teacher may
want to feel more comfortable if he uses the same jargon as his students.
Therefore, this could suggest that the students feel more comfortable around
him and can confide in him. The teacher also uses lexis to clarify his point
such as ‘yeah’. This lexical choice always follows an imperative which
therefore could suggest that the teacher wants to manipulate the student into
agreeing with him. During the transcript the teachers use correct grammar. For
example ‘you need to’ shows that he is using the verb ‘need’ followed by the
preposition ‘to’ rather than saying ‘needa’ like the unemployed people would
say. Therefore, this shows that he has a high level of linguistic understanding
and may even be in a high social class as he knows to use correct grammar
rather than colloquialism. The teacher uses connectives at the beginning of
sentences such as ‘but make some notes’. This may be because of the context of
a classroom environment and a student has interrupted him. Therefore, he must
continue what he was saying in order to get his point across to the class. The
teacher uses an interrogative when speaking to a student. For example, ‘can you
do some work’. This shows that he is the powerful participant because it is a
demand rather than a question. This is also shown by not following the
interrogative with ‘please’ which shows it is a demand. Declaratives are also
used when the teacher says ‘I want you’. This shows that the students do not
have a choice whether they should do it or not as the powerful speaker has
declared that this is what they should do
No comments:
Post a Comment