Does you accent and dialect really matter?

It is very often that people will change their accent or dialect when they talk, whether it be to fit in or to stand out.

Travelling has become a more frequent thing to do, this increase has meant that people with different dialects mix. The mix of different dialects allows people to pick up words which they would not normally use. The more people the more language is swapping and people are using dialect from other regions, this is causing dialect levelling, the swapping of dialects could create dialects to become more similar. We are influenced in many different ways to use other regional dialects and accents. These influences come from books, TV, music, films, etc... This creates a wider range of accents and dialects mixing because these different media's do not require you to leave your region or even house. You get the experience of hearing multiple dialects within TV shows or music. 

How people would like to be perceived has a big effect on how they talk. People are more likely to converge their language to those around them so they are not different, they would like to fit in. Although this may not seem true, it is actually a very frequent thing. People may also diverge their language to make as different from others as they can, like in Martha's Vineyard study (by Labov), this showed that the locals strengthened their pronunciations to make themselves an independent social group that are superior to the tourists. This suggests that people in Martha's Vineyard see that them changing their language is making their status higher than the tourists, so they are seen as more superior. Talking in the same way as those close to you could allow you to feel closer to them and them to accept you more.  There was a study done in 1987 in Belfast, it found that men lived in a much more close-knit friendship than women which showed that they spoke the same way within the group (linguistically homogenous) and due to peer pressure used more non-standard English when talking.  

It is common for people to judge a person on their accent or dialect. Should your accent matter? Should the words you use contribute to how someone sees you? People are still discriminated against for how they speak, but does that really mean they should change? 

Accents should not matter or affect how people see you, but they do. There have been multiple studies that show how accent effect what people think. 

Giles 1970's matched guise technique: People evaluated their personal qualities base on their voices. However what they didn't know that it was the same person doing different accents, this found that people were most impressed with received pronunciation and least impressed with the Birmingham accent. 

Giles capital punishment study: found that people preferred accents which are like their own.

People also judge how smart someone is due to their accent, received pronunciation is the most common to hear when watching the news as people perceive it as sounding smart. Berstein and Labov disproved this idea though as they did a study which found that there was not a clear link between intelligence and spoken language. This study shows that even though people may be prejudice towards certain accents, how they speak actually has nothing to do with how smart they are or how well they will do compared to those who have an accent that is associated with being smart.

Gender speech

Taylor Swift was asked a question in an interview "But you only ever write songs about your ex-boyfriends" and she smartly replied "I think, frankly that's a very sexist angle to take. No one says that about Ed Sheeran. No one says that about Bruno Mars. They're all writing songs about their exes, their current girlfriend, their love life. And no one raises a red flag there".

Is sexism still alive? 

Assumptions are always being made about the differences between and men and women, how they speak differently, how they are treated or should be treated, etc... Even being addressed has sexism in it, most people may not know or acknowledge it but being called Mrs creates the idea that you are unavailable yet Miss suggest they are young, inexperienced. When speaking to people there should be more care with how you address them as assuming a gender or calling a woman Mrs when they prefer Ms is such a simple thing but it may mean more to someone else. Language shows an old attitude to gender, most forms show men to be superior to women. 
Children are given titles when they are born, whether it be Miss for a girl and Master for a boy, these titles then change. For a boy Master will change to Mr when they turn 16, on the other hand, girls get the title Miss until they are married, at that point they become Mrs. Why is it that a man's title will change when they become old enough for Mister but a woman has to wait till she is married for a change in title? The negative connotations that are related to Miss maybe due to the word being a contraction of mistress, most people associate the word mistress to be someone who is a girlfriend of a man that is married. The use of Ms means that people may be less prejudice as it does not indicate their marital status before their name. The use of Ms almost removes the idea that a man is getting power over the women when they marry, her title will not change neither will his.
These titles may suggest that men are more dominant and have more power whereas women are lower than men. A linguist called Deborah Tannen represented her ideas of men and women's language in what each gender looks for in a conversation. The six contrasts are status vs support, independence vs intimacy, advice vs understanding, information vs feelings, orders vs proposals and conflict vs compromise. According to these contracts men want the upper hand to stop others from dominating them,they are concerned with their status and want to be independent, they look for solutions to problems and use or want direct imperatives. Whereas women want confirmation and support of their ideas, seek understanding or sympathy, elaborate and talk more about feelings and don't use imperatives, they are more likely to suggest something rather than say a command.
It may matter you, it may not, but it could matter to someone else. 

Does gender play a part in our language changing?

Political correctness has improved over time as people have started to use gender neutral terms where there are gender pairs; for example, policeman is police officer and fireman is firefighters. This allows jobs to be seen more gender neutral rather than it just being a male occupation or a female occupation. Despite language changing in gender pairs it is not the same when it comes to the connotations of certain titles or marked words. Words such as 'spinster' and 'Mistress' have strong semantic derogation. The need for things to become gender neutral seem to be very strong in this generation, people tend to get offended easily and that may be a reason why language is changing.

The search for a gender neutral pronoun started in the 18th century. There have been many attempts to create the perfect gender neutral pronouns but none have agreed on. It would be a massive change to language if one if found that people agree on.

A gender neutral pronoun is a pronoun that is not associated with a particular gender, an exapmle would be 'they'. The probably with 'they' is that it is a plural pronoun, so, when it is used as a singular pronoun it is not grammatically correct. The need for a gender neutral pronoun shows how people are trying to change/improve language so that everyone is comfortable with using the language. Creating a gender neutral pronoun would allow those who do no not like to assume gender, and so write 'he/she', to have a word that doesnt look as untidy.

Zimmerman and West did a study with mixed-sex conversation and they found that men interrupted more than women, this is supportive of the stereotype that men are more dominant which suggests that there was still gender inequality.

There have been many questions on whether men and women speak diffrently, multiple linguists have tried to show the diffrences. For example, Lakoff published assumptions of womens and mens language. 

How are meanings and representations communicated in the two texts?

A) Action aid website
The information from action aid is shown through a website, the charity is showing Fairtrade resources. It shows games, stories and presentations that teachers could use to help inform their classes on what is happening. It has a simple lay out which is easy to navigate that allows the audience to easily look around the website and learn more. The teacher would probably already know about the subject and so would know where to look to find what they need. However, they would need it to be simple and have good explanations to be able to hook those they are teaching it too. It is a engaging website with its multiple links and different types of resources that allow them to teach in multiple different ways. The websites whole purpose would be to inform people about what is happening (problems) and what is being done; it is explaining how people are living, giving those who don't understand an incite into what it is like to live like they do.


B)Mail online website
The second text is produced through an online news paper, the article uses multiple quotes from a report that had been produced about Fair trade. To come across this post the audience (those who support charities and are looking for news on them)  would probably be having to look for the subject or they could have been just a frequent online mail reader which means the header does not necessarily need to hook the reader as they are already interested in the subject. The very factual news article is exposing the truth about a very big charity that most people know; it is informing and discussing the problems that have been truly happening with the charity, Fair trade. When reading the article the audience is going to be shocked as this is a very well known charity and to find out that they are not actually helping is going to be surprising. With out reading the header they could be assuming they are going to be reading about how great the charity is doing. There is a summary of the text at the start in bullet points which may be to help people understand what is going to be spoken about to help make sure they stay on the page and read the article, it is allowing them to get a feeling of what the article is putting across.

C) compare
The Mail Online website says 'fails to help poor farmers' in its headline. The actionaid teaching resources says 'Uncover to your class how Fairtrade is helping break the cycle' in their sub-heading, so immediately the websites are showing two diffrent sides of the same subject. The verb 'helping' used by Actionaid is suggesting that what they are doing is for the best, to help those in need, it is spredding postitivity. Whereas the Mail Online uses the noun 'fails' this is implying that the charity is a falure, they have not done what they set to do.They are almost exposing the charity in a way that is not saying they are not helping anyone but suggesting that they are not doing the best in some areas (Uganda and Ethiopia) and have let people down.

The two text are presented in two completely diffrent ways due to one being a teaching resource and the other being a article. However, both the website touch on the topic about age. In the Mail Online article it talks about child labour and how the majority of children said 'they had been working since the age of 10, or even younger' when asked; the topic follows an image of bad working conditions above it. On the Actionaid website it says 'Meet 9-year-old Thais from Brazil, and find out what she and her grand mother do for a living', this is meeting exactly what the Mail Online said about children working before they are ten years old. This quote is matched with a picture of a young girl smiling while handling potatos this could be implying that although she is very young she is enjoying her work and it is not a horrible thing to do, unlike the picture on the Mail Online website.

Me:  what did your job a diesel involve?
Des: jeans
Me: jus
Ciara: did you sell the jeans to people? how did that go?
Des: it was great

....

Me: does that mean you can tell anyone their jean size?

.....

Me: does anyone have any responsibilities in their families?

....

Ciara: I uh walk my dog
Me: you /walk/ your dog?
Clara: /like/ like twice a week maybe
Me: is that it?
Ciara: everyone else does it I don't really wanna do it so that's kinda my responsibility
Me: that's the whole reason I don't want a dog cuz

....



What i found out about myself as speaker when listening and writing up a transcript:

I spoke quite confidently, however this may have been because i knew the people i was talking too. Although i spoke confidently i had hardly any airtime, when i spoke i said what was need and then it was passed on to the next person who would answer the question or carry on the conversation. I believe i am more of a active listner (Schegloff's conversational model) as i don't say much but i input where i believe it is needed and when i feel something should be said or asked.
Throughout the whole talk it is awkward, this could be due to it not being a usual conversation that i would usually have with friends and so it made it look more forced. The questions i asked did not come across in a way that suggested that i may be interested in what their answer will be. 
I mostly asked questions, this interpreted in refrence to Fishman could suggest that it is a sign of me showing power whithin the conversation and an attribute to interaction. On the other hand Lakoff believes questions are a sign of weakness. I think i used mostly paralingustics (which cannot be shown on a transcript) to pass over to the next speaker. Also, i used vocatives to pass the conversation, even though i didn't say their name it was a direct address as they were not broad questions. I believe a key part of me as a speaker is the paralinguistics i use, facial expressions and body language. 

Gender representations

In this picture women are represented as weak. The question 'You mean a woman can open it?' is emphasising that women would not normally be strong enough to open the jar. It's allowing the audience to look at it and assume that they have made it easier to open so a woman can do it. It is suggesting that if a woman can do it anyone can.

This picture is showing exactly what people believe their child should be associated when they are a girl or a boy. As Tannen said the diffrence in he genders language starts at childhood, the magnets are even labled 'boy talk' and 'girl talk' as if girls have to talk using the words on the girl magnets and thr boys have to talk using the words on the boy magnets. Tannen sugested that boys are fed more verbs and this is strong supported by the magnets as the 'boys talk' has words such as 'swinging', 'climbing' and 'running'. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCyw3prIWhc

This video show Ellen talking about Bic For Her pens, she talks about the idea of the pen that is just for women. The pen is meant to be better for 'lady hands' and comes in colours such as pink and purple. Just from the packaging of this pen it is representing the image that most gils have to like the colour pink or purple because they are 'girl' clolours. On the packet of one of the pack of pens it says 'beautifully smooth', the adverb 'beautifully' is sterotypically a feminine word. the idea that now there is a pen for women all other pens were for men and now women have these pens that are pretty colours and fitted for a more feminie hand.

Analysing 7 years by Lukas Graham

It was a big big world, but we thought we were bigger
Pushing each other to the limits, we were learning quicker
By eleven smoking herb and drinking burning liquor
Never rich so we were out to make that steady figure

Once I was eleven years old my daddy told me
Go get yourself a wife or you'll be lonely
Once I was eleven years old

I always had that dream like my daddy before me
So I started writing songs, I started writing stories
Something about the glory, just always seemed to bore me
Cause only those I really love will ever really know me


This song is about growing up, how the writer experienced it and how he is looking towards the future,questioning it. The way the writer is portraying himself is more of a general vision, this may be to allow those listening to relate and think back to their childhood. I think a lot of it is showing the pressures of growing up and to grow up faster. 

Later in the song he says 'soon ill be 60 years old' this could be him telling everyone life is short as he sings about key stages in life. The idea of his dad telling him to find a wife at eleven is showing the pressure and how fast people want children to grow up. The repetition  of 'once i was eleven years old' is like he is reminiscing, this could suggest he may miss being that young.

When he talks about it being a big world but he thought he was bigger is the idea that all children think they know everything . This idea may have influenced how he grew up, it could show that he was a bold child who thought he was bigger than the world, like nothing could drag him down.

He says 'the glory, just always seemed to bore me' which could suggest that he is a down to earth person. The idea of fame and glory is not appealing and as a child he may have been someone who was always in the background and didn't want to be center of attention.