Language and power transcripts

Proper nouns are used by the barrister when referring to Mr Peterson and 2nd person personal pronouns when referring to Mr N. Using second person personal pronouns with Mr N is like the barrister is talking in an accusing tone, with the repetition of Mr N's name the barrister is putting Mr N under pressure. The purpose of using the proper nouns could be to show that he is addressing Mr N specifically and using Mr Peterson's name is like he is trying to remind Mr N of what he did.

The barristers talk and language is more like court room talk and seems planned whereas Mr N's doesn't, "according to you Mr Neil (.) this ill feeling (.) this grudge". The barrister only uses micro-pauses which are probably just him breaking up his sentences where as Mr Neil uses pauses from the shortest of 0.5 seconds and the longest of 2.5. The long pauses coming from Mr Neil could show that he is nervous and trying to come up with answers. His longest pause of 2.5 seconds was before he simply answered 'no' which could imply that he may have been considering a different answer.

Normally the barrister should have the power in this situation but at points it seems that Mr Neil actually has the power. When Mr Neil overlaps the barristers talk with his answer it's showing that he's not scared and is not afraid to give his answer. For example, the barrister says "you can't remember whether they came to see you or not?" and Mr Neil replies over the top "I don't think they did no". This could show power, however, it could also mean that he is rushing to say his answer as he is afraid that the barrister may be catching on that he's worried or afriad. Although the overlapping may actually be Mr Neil being nervous an afraid. This would suggest that the barrister has more power because he is making Mr Neil scared. The rushing of answers could show that he doesn't want the barrister to catch on to his hesitations and is almost being defensive about his answers.

Another way the barrister is showing more power is the way he puts across his sentences. The barrister has an obvious advantage to Mr Neil because it shows in his language the he is prepared whereas Mr Neil is not. This shows power because the barrister can have confidence as he is prepared and confidence allows power.

An interesting thing about this transcript is that even though you would think that it would be serious. The paralinguistic features used in this make it seem like Mr Neil is taking it as a joke as he laughs. However, the paralinguistic features could show that he is amazed with what the barrister is coming up with as he is asking Mr Neil if he has been having multiple problems with the police.

Commentary on controversial issue

I chose gun laws in America because it is a key subject people are talking about due to the mass shooting in Oregon.

The first blog uses longer sentences suggesting that the audience the person is expecting is a more mature audience. The longer sentences allow the writing to flow. The blogger uses multiple rhetorical questions trying to engage the reader in their piece and get them to think about the subject. If they already have their own view on the problem and if it is different from the bloggers it is kind of trying to get them to re-think their ideas. It asks the reader twice if guns are helping, again making them think well do I need a gun? Am I using it for the right reasons? The reader could start to question themselves.

The purpose of this blog was to just to show some ideas that this blogger had and to reach out to the target audience and persuade them. The audience may be shocked when they read the blog as they may have been just expecting some views on the topic but by the time they finished reading it their views may have changed even though they were 100% sure on their choice.

The blogger has wrote "Think logically people" which could make the reader feel like they are being stupid and not thinking correctly. The quote was intending to make the reader believe they are thinking irrationally. If the reader is for guns it may make them take a step back and think about the other side for a second. It is creating a more persuasive piece of writing. This first blog shows more about all the bad things guns are doing and how they are affecting the country in a bad way. Whereas the second blog is thinking about how people use it in a day to day way and how it is benefiting us. For example, it talks about how they are used for sporting events. 


On the second blog the blogger has used short more snappy sentences. This is because they are trying to grab the reader's attention; it is making every sentence a new point for the reader to think about. The short sentences are allowing the blogger to change the topic or direction of his points faster and without fully explaining the point. The short sentences are making it a better way to communicate with the reader as the blogger is getting straight to the point and making it easier to remember as well as being easy to read. However, the short sentences are over used within the piece which doesn't allow the writing to flow. The purpose of the short sentences is to make it obvious that the blogger is writing to an audience that may not have the best reading skills as well as them not being the most advanced in English. 

There is an increase and overuse of exclamation marks near the end of the blog post. It's the blogger trying to show the reader the importance of what they are saying and making sure they pay attention to the message. Through his piece he is showing that guns are used for more than what the media show. Blogger two repeats the idea of protection and safety throughout his piece and always refers back to it. "Protect the county" and "protect themselves". The repetition of these ideas shows that he is actually thinking about the use of the guns and why the majority of America may use one. The blogger is always mentioning the real reasons for most of the public reasons for guns and mentioning it slightly without it being the main point could be putting it into the readers unconsciousness. This would make the reader keep thinking about it with not really knowing why and maybe even changing their min on how they see the use of guns.

The blogger makes it personal by saying ''I feel more secure when I have a gun'' which shows the audience that he is a real person that is benefiting from the guns which could be adding emphasis to his points. There is actually a repetition of 'I' which is because it's a blog. However, this is also to convince his target audience and make it feel like he is pleading to them, trying to make them understand and see where he is coming from. 

Controversial issues: Gun laws in America

Blog one: Guns Kill!

I think guns in America should be banned, not 100% but most of them. I think Mr Obama should be putting more restrictions down on who and what type of guns the people of America are allowed. There have been multiple shootings and people are dying yet guns are still allowed to dangerous people. 
10 people were killed in a shooting at a community college in Oregon and it won't be the last time that it will happen. Australia has banned guns, they gathered up and destroyed guns. Literally. Obama has praised Australia for their act towards guns. Can you believe that? I certainly can't. He is allowing guns to rule the country; saying things need to be done to change the impact guns are having but not acting on it. 

I have heard people say that allowing more people to have guns would be better and if it happens again then they can protect themselves. However, how is having more guns going to be more helpful to stop guns? If more firearms are allowed the the risk is going to be higher and people will be in more danger. Not everyone knows how to handle a gun. There are people who are hired to protect those who can not protect themselves. People are not guns, we do not need to rely on bullets to protect ourselves or others. They are just making fights that wouldn't be happening if they were not here. Is keeping them really helping anyone? 

Think logically people. 

How is the general public meant to be relied on if police can't even use their guns properly? The police! Even those who are trained to use guns (E.g. police) can't always handle it. There have been many police shootings where they have killed an innocent person. Many cases have been recorded where police are using the guns when they are not needed or they are shooting people when the other person was no real harm. How are they helping? Truly.

Personally i have never used a gun and i wish to never have nor need one as i hope that those who are meant to protect and serve the county do their job. I hope that all my followers take on my points and if you do own a gun go careful and use it respectfully. No one should have to go through what those family's are going through because guns are not being properly.

Blog two: Saving ourselves

I disagree. I don't think the guns are the main reason. I think it's more to do with the people who are getting a hold of the guns. I think you are kind of right about needing restrictions but only about who is getting a hold of the gun. Guns allow people to feel secure. They can protect themselves within their houses. I feel more secure when i have a gun. It doesn't have to be on me just near me. A gun in the house gives me ease. I know that i can't physically defend myself. They allow those who are physically weaker to protect themselves from others. The police are not there all the time. We should be able to look after ourselves like adults do and are expected to do.

If guns were illegal it is really going to stop people from getting one? If someone really wanted or needed a gun im sure they would be able to find somewhere to get it. I think it would be better if they were legal. If they were legal then people would be able to protect themselves and records could be kept for those who buy guns. Put restrictions on who buys the gun. Have background checks for each and every person and make them sign contracts, limit them. If they get more than two guns or big ones when they aren't need then keep an eye on what they do. Don't get rid of them because few people are making bad decisions with them. If they are suspicious you could tag them, maybe even remove their guns. Take more precautions. These mass shootings should not be happening as often as they do. Or they shouldn't be happening at all.

If the only way to protect the country while keeping guns is to put in more restrictions the they should do it. A massive part of the US is about guns. People have gun shows! They do competitions! It's like a sport to some people.

 Places that have stricter gun laws actually have higher crime rates, so, who says more gun laws will stop gun violence? The NRA president said “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun”.  Even the NRA President agrees that people need guns! We need guns to protect ourselves! To give us security! 

Thank you for reading. Maybe you agree with some of the points or maybe you don't. If you have a gun then good for you but don't take advantage of the power that it holds.

Comparing two articles...

Artical 1:BBC News - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34385770

Article 2 Sky News - http://news.sky.com/story/1560551/british-is-fighters-hit-with-un-sanctions

The BBC article was very long and explained everything in much more detail than the Sky News report. Both reports are about the four British IS fighters, in the BBC article it names and mentions what each one has done. "Aqsa Mahmood, 21, has been accused of recruiting three London schoolgirls to join IS". The Sky News report has just mentioned their names and picked one woman to talk about. This could be because the BBC is more of a serious news page that is to keep people fully informed whereas the Sky News report is a sports channel and so the lack of information on world affairs  is likely. People would be expecting more of an explanation from daily news rather than sport news.

The Articles have some of the same content but the BBC has an analysis of the situation and talks about as much of the situation as they can. The BBC uses quote from the prime minister whereas the Sky report uses quotes from people such as the government spokeswoman. This could suggest that the BBC is more important to give news across and uses more formal language.  

The change in language...

In today's society young adult and teens are using "text speak" in their everyday lives. The use of these slang words are growing within the young people today and its evolving. Older generations are confused at the types of words or acronyms that are being used on social media. The young generation are creating a whole new language that is being spread through sites like Twitter and Facebook.
                                               
Language is always changing as country's are becoming more multicultural and this is creating languages to mix. Slang is shifting from just on social media site into the real world so much so that they are using it when communicating to people who are very influential. Parents are beginning to think that their children are speaking a completely different language and they are not able to understand as it evolves. The shortening of words are also something that is creating confusion, simple sentences such as on my way are being changed to 'omw'.

 Words such as 'bae' are being used on daily basis, the abbreviation can mean either 'before anyone else' or 'babe'. Text talk is people missing letters in words to shorten it for example, 'u' for you or, 'r' for are or 'm8'. Another thing that is increasing is the use of emoji's. Smartphones have the little images installed into the phone for people to use instead of words. People are able to create full sentences with the emoji's and even have full conversations.

It is said that girls like to socialize and be more chatty than boys and so this could lead into their texting. Girls being more chatty could make them have a different way of texting to boys, they may use more emoji's or spread out their chat. However, boys may be more direct when texting their friends. Words such as 'dude' are more likely to come up in a male conversation than a female and females are more likely to use emoji's to express their feelings.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/may/01/icymi-english-language-is-changing-faster-than-ever-says-expert

Advertisement with spoken elements...

When collecting a bunch of writing with spoken elements in, it was clear that they use a lot of exaggeration. An example is "water never tasted so good" and "it will blow your mind", the exaggeration make people want to try a product to see if it is like they say; they are catching their target audiences attention. They have words that are written as they would be said rather than how they should be written, an example is a cider advert, cider is written as "cider's" when it would normally be written as cider is.   Another thing i noticed is that some give instructions to the person reading it, for example a water advert says "filter your life" or the Nike slogan "just do it". They are telling people to do something or go somewhere. Another thing i noticed with these pieces is that they are using positive language towards the audience. They say things like "your worth it" and the friendliest drink on earth" which make their audience want to go out and get it to see if it really is as they say. The advertisement companies use synthetic personalisation which is the company trying to create a false relationship with their target audience, they tend to use second person so they are addressing the people directly.

Liked and disliked words

After discussing and grouping words that we liked and disliked we noticed a few patterns within the groups. For example, one of the groups were adjectives. In our class adjectives were mostly liked whereas words that have had the meanings changed (e.g. like and literally) were the least likeable. One thing that interested me was that words associated with food were disliked. We believed a reason for this could be because people may not like a food and so create a bad association with the word creating them to not like the word. Another thing was that taboo words were equally liked and not liked.  This could have been because of the meaning behind them, the ones that were mostly offensive to women were not liked.