Analysing and comparing

Part A) Text A is a website, YouGov is to inform the public about the government affairs and seek the public's opinions on such topics. The purpose of the website could be to engage people who are part of the younger generation with the use of affordances such as the line that goes down the whole page and links all the information together. This 'tech savvy' website may attract those who are interested in finding out a range of information within one website. However, there are slight constraints with the fact that those under 18 may not feel like they can take part in the website due to voting age being 18. This may mean that the websites ultimate aim to get clicks on their website may not be achieved due to it not appealing to those of all ages.

The website starts off with an interrogative asking the audience 'what would you like to do?', this could suggest that they are trying to mitigate their language due to the fact that the person has had to come to a website to find out the information they need. This could be seen as face threatening as they cannot do it face to face, so they have mitigated their language to show the audience that  they are respect and important. It is an interrogative that offers you options and allows you to make your own decisions.

Part B) Text B  is on the BBC online news page informing people about the recent mayor elections.

Compare) Text A is from the YouGov website and it talks about what is available within the website and gives you lots of options to search around and find what might interest you. The purpose is to not only inform but to educate both the reader and the creators of the website. Text B is from the BBC online news page and it is being very concise about the results of the mayor elections and focusing on the Labor party. The purpose of the article is to inform people about the election results in a way that is going to get them more clicks as it is an online article.

As text B is the BBC people would expect it to be to be very formal yet they use hypercorrect grammar, such as saying 70 instead of seventy. However, this may just be to help make the text much easier to read and it goes with the almost summary style that it is written in. Text A is written quite formally despite it being short sentaces that are straight to the point. The formality would be almost expected as it is a political website however they put it in a way that may appeal to young people. This being that they split the paragraph so it is much shorter and does not seem like it would be as much effort to read as a whole paragraph.

The first text focuses more on the synthetic personalisation whereas the second text is all about the statistics. The first text uses the repetition of 'you' and focuses on getting you interactive with the website which could show that they are looking for more than clicks, they are there to help and the most interesting way they can and this is through things such as questionnaires.

Opinionated article about the use of work language in other contexts

Target audience- The Guardian

All Day, Everyday

Has the language you use at work started to follow you home? Have you been talking in a professional manner to your friends?

It is very often that people use the same language from work in their social life, this should stop. It is really not a healthy thing to use the language from your occupation outside of that area due to it may reduce the love you have for your career and confuse others that are not within that discourse community. This could happen as if you talk as though you are at work it will probably start to feel as though you are always at work and you can't relax. Nobody likes to feel they are working all the time.

Associating work with home can make life stressful.

As a lawyer, I very frequently use language from my profession in my social life. Cases are always going around in my head and this very frequently makes me tired of the job. Recently I have been noticing it more and how it is affecting my life. In work, I mostly use bald on-record as this fits the type of work I do however when I leave and use it in other contexts, such as the supermarket, I just come across rude.

Having occupational power does not mean that you will have social power and you may not notice that you are not in the same position of one hierarchy as the other. This could lead to awkward situations or people feeling that their face needs are being threatened. There are politeness strategies laid out by Goffman to protect the face needs from being threatened. So if at work you are a boss and at the top of your occupational hierarchy then you may use bald on record however outside of work you could be very low on the social hierarchy and so using a more direct way of talk may be seen as rude.

Bringing your work language to other aspects of your life could be a good thing as you may influence those around you do broaden their vocabulary and knowledge. However, they may not enjoy this, it could make people feel trapped. I definitely would not enjoy if my brother continuously used language from the lexical field of lift engineering it would make everything so much harder. The worst thing about taking your work language into other contexts is the effect it could have on the children that are around it. I believe the use of occupational language could have a bad effect on children as the use could make them feel as though they are in a place of work at home. For example, in care homes having words such as office and staffroom. They are cold and impersonal which is not good for the development of the child they may always feel as though their home is not their home.

Work should stay in work. Don't negatively affect yourself and those around you because you cannot separate occupational language from social language.