Sunday, 21 June 2015

Mini Investigation


Hypothesis: Older people (usually males) will hold the most power.

Transcript of separate conversations from Gogglebox from the same working class family:

-------- =separate conversations

J= Jonathan (Dad)        N= Nikki (Mum)       Jo= Josh (Son)       A=Amy (Daughter)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jo: Is that how you danced with your wrists dad at |bar mitzvahs|

J:                                                                                        |I know|

 N: Don’t criticize (.)  you’re father’s dancing  (.) he is fabulous

Jo: Is it (2) (dances) is |it| yeah

N:                                   |I| would never ever married someone who can’t dance (1) it’s such a turn off

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

N: He is so stunning (.) you’ve got to admit he’s so good looking

J: You really like him don’t |you|

N:                                            |He’s| one of the best looking men on this Earth

J: Uh |huh|

N:      |He| |is|

A:               |Apart | from dad (3) after |dad|

N:                                                                 |He’s| stun|ning|

A:                                                                                       |After|dad

N: Yeah after dad

J: Yeah she really meant that didn’t she

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

A: Dad (.) then their gonna come back at us (2)

J: Well unfortunately (.) they hate the west anyway (2) if don’t (1) if someone doesn’t have the ideology (.)

N: Then they |think|

J:                     |then| they’re going to destroy them just the same (1)

A: So then why don’t we just stay out of it and not get involved and |then|

N:                                                                                                                     |No because we can’t (.) they

J:                                                                                                                       |Because they will still all (.)

N: need| they need the support of countries like us and| America|

J: they’ll still attack us|                                                           |They| need (.) that’s why they are called allies (1) countries get |together|

A:                                     |So what’s| gonna |happen|

J:                                                                         |It’s| good fighting bad (.) it’s good fighting evil

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

·         Interruptions: J=5    N=5    Jo=0    A=3

·         Sentence length: J=70    N=70    Jo=17    A=34 

 
Through all three conversations, interruptions were a constant factor. There were 13 interruptions overall: 2 in the first conversation, 5 in the second conversation and 6 in the last. The higher amount of times that someone interrupts could suggest that they are the more powerful participant within a conversation. Stereotypically males are more likely to interrupt than women. This is from Zimmerman and Wests ‘Dominance Theory’.  Another theory that could support interruptions as a significant feature in analysis is Fairclough’s ‘Unequal Encounters’. One person supposedly is more dominant than the others in a conversation, although it can change; if one person is interrupting more than others, they could hold the influential power, and they may appear to seem more dominant.

The parents interrupt the most and equally which was what I had originally expected, although I did think that ‘J’ was going to interrupt the more as he’s the dad of the family. In the last conversation ‘J’ interrupts 4 times, which is the most in the conversation. In the second conversation ‘N’ interrupts the most (3 times) which could suggest that between them 'J' is more dominant.

 

Another attribute that could show who has the most power is sentence length. If someone has the most power and dominance then they most likely would have longer air time. The data shows that overall in all three conversations, oddly, both parents had an equal amount of sentence length. 'J' spoke 10 times and 'N': 11. The reason behind this could be that they both spoke  lot when explaining to 'A' in conversation 3.

'Jo' isn't surprising to have spoken the least words considering he only spoke twice. 'A' spoke nearly half the amount as her parents which does prove my hypothesis. However it disproves The Dominance Theory when comparing her to 'Jo', who should have spoke more than her.
 

Goes against the theory/hypothesis:

·         'A' interrupts 'N' which is odd as 'A' is 'N's' daughter and so it is expected that the mother would have more dominance and power so her daughter would be expected to not interrupt.

·         'A' also interrupts 'J'-who is also her parent which again is surprising as she would be expected to 'respect her elders' and act like 'J' has the highest power overall, which he should do.

·         So, overall 'A' acts completely unexpected to as she should do, according to theory.

·         What is also unexpected is that 'Jo' surprisingly doesn't speak that much. H is present in all conversations, yet only speak in one. The Dominance Theory states that males will interrupt more and hold more power, so theoretically he should at least contribute to show his power.

Monday, 15 June 2015

Overall of my Mini Investigation


Introduction:

The topic I have chosen is Gender, focusing on women being stereotypically emotive and men more dominant. The aspect of language that I have chosen to analyse is the context and length, also how straight to the point both sets of tweets are. MY hypothesis is that men are more dominant and straight to the point. Whereas women appear to 'waffle' and be more emotive linking the Dominance and Deficit Theory.

 

Methodology:

To make sure that my tweets were unbiased, I chose a tweet after every certain amount. So every third tweet was chosen so that it was systematic. Due to it being systematic, it didn't have any obvious anomalies.

 

Analysis:

Overall, we have found out that our data does not support our hypothesis. The primary reason is because we chose extremely different people: a political leader and a reality star. What's significant is how unexpected our results were. Ed Miliband was more emotive than Amy Childs. The quantitive evidence to support my hypothesis is that women use more emojis and hash tags and so could be considered emotive. However there is also evidence to disprove it.

 

Conclusion:

My findings disprove my hypothesis. The main problem was that our approach to the choice of people was wrong. We should have chosen people that were a lot more similar; instead of choosing a politician and a reality star, we could have chose two reality stars (like Joey Essex and Amy Childs) or two politicians (Ed Miliband and Theresa May).

Also the data we chose for Ed Miliband was from when he was under pressure to get public votes for the election. He had to be positive and supportive of the public.

 

For the Future:

The draw backs of using Twitter is that people can out what they want on it. They don't have to hide from anyone and may react differently than they naturally would.

In the future I would need to choose more suitable people for the investigation. I would also have to choose the tweets from a more suitable time when there wasn't any elections.

A similar age for the people would also be a positive.

Sunday, 14 June 2015

Transcript of The Apprentice


Transcript:

S: I  was the project manager I lost money (.) but the reason I lost money (.) and I could've made a fortune in that shopping centre this morning(.) if we started this |morning|

SA:                                                                                               |could've|

S:                                                                                                                cause I'm |good|

SA:|could've| (.) yeah (.) could've should've would've (.) yeah (.) but you didn't right

S: No Sir |Alan|

SA:         |No| (.) you didn't (.) yeah (3) I think I've heard enough (.) for me to make a (.) very difficult decision here |today|

C:                               |Sir| Alan may I say one more thing please (3)

SA: If you insist (1)

C: I think in this whole competition (.) if you sit back and remain quiet and under the radar (1) people assume their safe (1) and I've been bold and I know I'm vocal |and|

SA:                                                                                                    |you've| been bold |alright|

C: |and it |puts |me|

SA:                  |don't| worry| about that

C:                             |and| it puts me in a vulnerable position (.) I'm sorry I've |sat| here

SA:                                                                                                                |the| trouble is (.) you know (.) you never back off (1) you know what I'll tell you what I'm gonna do with you (.) I'll tell you what I'm gonna do with you (1) I'm getting sick and tired with you denying all of this (.) I'm sick of looking at you (.) now get out that door (2) get back to the bloody house (.) ok (.) get back to the house (.) yeah (.) because you're gonna be the next team leader (.) I'm sick of looking at you at the moment (.) get out that door (.) and get back to the house

 

Explanation:

1.       What is interesting about the language used is that despite the formal setting, there are constant interruptions. Although it is Sir Alan who interrupts the most (six times), which could be because of his power status. Both his influential and instrumental power allows him to be able to interrupt without sounding rude.

2.      I could use the Dominance Theory when analysing the transcript. Zimmerman and West put forward the idea that men interrupt more than women. This can be proven by comparing Sir Alan's interruptions, 6, to Claire's, 3.

3.      I could also compare the type of grammar that all three people. They have different levels of power and so use different types of words when talking to each other.

4.      The title I could use for an investigation into data like this could be: How does interruptions in formal situations show the difference in our language?

5.      Real data that I could collect is a transcript from a business meeting or formal situation.