Analysing song lyrics

I'm gonna pick up the pieces
And build a Lego house
When things go wrong we can knock it down

My three words have two meanings
There's one thing on my mind, it's all for you

And it's dark in a cold December, but I've got ya to keep me warm
And if you're broken I'll mend ya
And keep you sheltered from the storm that's raging on now

I'm out of touch, I'm out of love
I'll pick you up when you're getting down
And out of all these things I've done I think I love you better now

I'm out of sight, I'm out of mind
I'll do it all for you in time
And out of all these things I've done I think I love you better now

I'm gonna paint you by numbers and color you in
If things go right we can frame it, and put you on a wall

And it's so hard to say it but I've been here before
And I'll surrender up my heart and swap it for yours

I'm out of touch, I'm out of love
I'll pick you up when you're getting down
And out of all these things I've done I think I love you better now

I'm out of sight, I'm out of mind, I'll do it all for you in time
And out of all these things I've done I think I love you better now



The writer uses a metaphor of a Lego house to discuss himself and how he would like to be in the future "It's so hard to say it but I've been here before and I'll surrender up my heart and swap it for yours" He is still stuck in his old habits and he is using the idea a of swapping his heart to reflect swapping all he cares about now to be the person he wants to be.

"If you're broken I'll mend ya and keep you sheltered from the storm that's raging on now...I'll pick you up when you're getting down... "  The writer is writing from a first person to the love interest. He uses 'sheltering from the storm' as a metaphor for helping through hard times. He goes onto explain this further by adding 'I'll pick you up when you're getting down... " This almost romanticizes the struggles of the person as he tries to prove his love by offering to help.

"I'm out of sight, I'm out of mind I'll do it all for you in time" These lyrics are written about how the other person may have tried to forget about him or cut him out of their life 'out of sight, I'm out of mind'. But he will still do everything he can to fix things. 'I'll do it all for you in time'. The writer doesn't use a verb to say what exactly what he will do which emphasizes the 'all' and the extent he will go to so he can win her back.

"I'm gonna paint you by numbers and colour you in, If things go right we can frame it, and put you on a wall" The paint you by numbers is a metaphor for fixing someone. 'colour you in' could mean that he's going to fill her with love/happiness as if he were colouring in a picture he's going to colour her in. The use of the verb 'colouring' reflects how he wants to add colour to her life and brighten it up as when you colour a picture it usually completes. To had colour to a picture is often seen as improving it or completing it.

Guardian article on accents




Betray you origins to avoid stereotype discrimination?

Do accents cause as many problems as we think?
More than a quarter of British people feel discriminated against because of the way they speak.

Accents are either something you are proud of or a feature you try to disguise. When discussing accents with another people may often try to make their accent stronger to prove a point. Others however may begin to try and talk in received pronunciation. This can depend on the stigma your accent of origin carries with it.

Stronger accents can often be linked to a stronger sense of pride in your place of origin. However these accents are the ones that the majority of the time are discriminated against. The Brummie accent is one of the more distinctive accents in the UK, yet in a recent survey brummie was found to be the least intelligent sounding accent.

In this post-modern society we live in, you would think that discrimination of accents would be a minor issue but according to new research 80% of employers have admitted to making discriminating decisions based on peoples accents. But experts say that the discrimination does not come from the way people sound, but because of the regional area of their accent. However in a recent study results showed RP sounding most intelligent when put next to Brummie and Scouse, making you wonder if it is the place of region or the sound of the accent itself.

Milroy 1987 Belfast accents

•  Milroy researched three working class areas within Belfast. These three areas have high unemployment. The places were Ballymacarrett, Hammer and Clonard. Milroy became part of the three communities playing the part of a friend of a friend.
• Milroy researched correlations between integration of individuals in the community and the speech of each individual. She gave each person a Network Strength Score from 1-5. When 1 is the lowest.
• This was given depending on the individuals own knowledge of others in the community, the workplace and at leisure activities. She then studied the individual’s linguistic variables.
• Her results showed that people who used the language of the region (vernacular) had a higher Network Strength score.
• People who used the language, mainly men, were part of close social groups. The regional language is used less by women because they are in less tight social group.
• Milroy studied interview style and spontaneous style language. In the younger male group, they used more PULL variable, women used SS (spontaneous style) 20% compared to 61% of men. E.g. pronouncing 'hand' as 'hound'.
• All the groups Used words such as 'mo'er' instead of 'mother'. Mainly men used this in IS and SS situations but women did use it too.

Bibliography 
http://www.putlearningfirst.com/language/research/milroy.html
https://prezi.com/imbhlnfxy2re/milroy-and-milroy-belfast-study/

Jenifer Lawrence response

The context of this text is Jennifer Lawrence angered by the discovery that she is earning less than her male co-workers. She talks about how she was a main character in the film but was not being paid equally to the males she acted along side. She talks about men being able to get what they want by asking but when she tried to do this she was turned down. She gives of a feeling of anger in the text due to the way she has been treated.

It is believed that males use more swear words when speaking, Jennifer uses a lot of swear words to push her outrage onto the reader. An example of this "Fuck that." This is more effective as it evokes a reaction out of the reader. This is because women stereotypically use empty adjectives and weak sentences that aren't to the point. This pushes Jennifer's point across even more as she comes across more 'masculine' which contrasts what is expected. She is also very to the point which is a stereotypically masculine trait. She talks about talking to someone who works for her "I spoke my mind and gave my opinion in a clear and no-bullshit way". This is seen as a masculine thing to do, to be concise and to the point. The reaction she gets from this goes to show how women and men can speak however they want, but if it's not socially accepted or the norm then they will not be treated equally. However Jennifer does use 'female' language in the text. She does not include a lot of humour which according to Lakoff  'women do not have a sense of humour'. She does make a few sarcastic comments, for example "I found out how much less I was being paid than the lucky people with dicks". This does have serious undertones and the rest of the text is mostly serious. Stereotypically if a male had written this he would have used humour to get his point across.

I agree with her conclusion that it is completely wrong for women to not be paid equally to men. It was right of her to question it with others and their reaction of acting as if she was being unreasonable was wrong. I agree it would have been responded to differently if it were a male querying the same situation. Like Cameron believes that gender is something you do not something you are, I agree. Jennifer proves this by using masculine language aspects rather than using empty adjectives and tag questions. 

Changing dialects.

In today's modern world we often discuss the development of technology and science. Something we do not often discuss is the development and changes in dialects and language. People who are not from England expect everyone here to speak with received pronunciation (posh) or cockney accents. This is definitely not the case anymore for many reasons.

Dialect leveling is a term used when local variation become less distinct and take on features of other dialects/sociolects. This has become common in recent years because of geographical mobility. This often because of peoples work or family living in different places. With everyone moving around all the time we mix with more people meaning that our dialects combine. This leads to peoples dialects not being from their place of origin. Another reason is social mobility As there has been a breakdown of the strict divides between social classes we now mix with all types of social classes and therefore our dialects combine. There are people who speak with RP and people who have rural dialects mixing daily.
Even if we do not have a large geographical mobility, our update in technology also leads us to being more open to other dialects. This can be through YouTube, Radio/TV shows,internet videos and music. By spending our time watching a lot of videos that contain different dialects we may begin to develop features of these dialects.
Do you sound more like your parents or friends? It is common for young people to pronounce words like their friends do and not how parents would. This is because there is now a pressure for young people to conform to  norms including linguistics. A lot of young peoples language develops from rap music where you can hear how the musician pronunciation of words and so they then use this themselves.
With all these ways of mixing with new people from different places our dialects often now do not link to our place of origin. We have a mixture of dialects and often change how we speak depending on who we are speaking to.

Questions on the barrister transcript

1)In the transcript proper nouns are used the majority of the time especially when the barrister is speaking. The barrister refers to others by their name. For example 'according to you Mr Neil. this ill feeling. this grudge on Mr Peterson's'. This use of proper nouns rather than pronouns makes the Barrister seem more formal and intimidating. The Barrister also repeats the proper nouns a lot. Constantly referring to Mr Neil by his name adds tension and makes Mr Neil feel under more pressure. As the transcript is from a courtroom this kind of pressure would be necessary and the audience of the dialogue would understand the scene.

2)The part of the dialogue that seems prepared are the turns from the barrister. The barrister seems to know what he is saying and almost knows how Mr Neil will reply as his speech is very latched to Mr Neil's. An example of this is 'Mr N:(2.5)no. Bar:did the police come to see you?' There are no pauses in this from the bar and he replies to Mr N straight after his answer. Mr N however seems very unprepared with what hes saying. He leaves long pauses before or between speaking and stutters a lot. An example of this is 'I was prosecuted (0.5) possibly a week or so later I believe' This pause in the middle of the sentence shows how unsure about his answer he is. He also uses fillers such as 'er I accidentally. bumped it slightly with er the rear of my car' This shows how unprepared he is with his answers and how he feels the need to stall as he does not know what to say.

3) In the dialogue the Barrister appears to have the most power. This comes across in the way he speaks and what he says. An example of this is the accusations he makes. 'is that because the police have seen you so many times Mr Neil that you can't remember'. This assumption shows how he has control over the situation to be able to assume Mr N can not remember for this reason without Mr N actually admitting this. The accusations make Mr N feel guilty and more nervous. This technique gives the barrister more power and the upper hand in the situation.
  Mr Neil's short and rushed answers show how little power he has. Mr Neil does not say a lot and answers most questions briefly. For example in line 17 the Barrister makes a large assumption abut Mr Neil and Mr Peterson's situation and all Mr N replies is 'Mr N:(1.0) no it's not right'. This quick answer shows how Mr N feels as he can not say a lot and is struggling to handle the barristers accusations. Giving him little power.
  Another way in which we can see the Barrister's power is his demand for answers. Examples of this are 'that didn't cross your mind at all?' and 'you can't remember whether they came to see you or not?'. His double questioning and demand for answers shows a level of authority above Mr Neil. This adds pressure to Mr Neil to answer questions quicker showing how little power he has compared to the Barrister as all he can do is answer the questions.

4)One quote that seems puzzling is the Barrister's stuttering at the start of the dialogue. 'when er you had er'. He seems to be struggling for words and this doesn't flow with the rest of his turns in the dialogue. Mr N is the person who stutters and struggles for answers so for the Barrister to be struggling shows a contrast to his usual idiolect. Another quote that is interesting is when Mr N laughs 'Mr N:[laughing quietly] that's not true no.' This contrasts Mr Neil's usual character a bit. Mr Neil seems nervous and unsure usually but this laughter shows him being slightly relaxed. This does not fit Mr Neil's other qualities.

Extension:
Barrister: you understand Mr John that what you have been accused of is a very serious matter(.)
Mr John:yes I do(.)
Barrister:according to you Mr John you were not at Miss Smiths house on Saturday night you were at your own home. is that true?
Mr John:er yes i er was(.)
Barrister:if that is correct Mr John then why was there evidence of you at Miss Smiths house the night she died?
Mr John:(3.0)there isn't any evidence from that evening.
Barrister:the neighbors have told us that they saw you leave Miss Smiths house around the time she was assumed to have been murdered(.)
Mr John: they can't have seen me I checked there was no car in their drive(.)
Barrister:so Mr John you admit that you were at Miss Smith's house the night of her death and that you checked that there was no one around first?
Mr John:er um(.)

Commentary on perspectives blog

I chose the subject of immigration because it's very relevant at the moment and I thought it would be interesting for me to learn about different opinions on the subject and then develop those opinions to make the characters.

The idiolect of the first character I wrote from was meant to be a formal and educated 58 year old man with knowledge on the subject. It was supposed to show he had strong views on the subject. I tried to reflect this in my work by writing formally and staying on the factual side of the subject. I wanted this person to have a clear opinion and to show it would be hard to persuade him otherwise. I did this by almost writing in an angry manner 'we should not be allowing more people in if we can't even house our own people.' This quote from the blog was meant to show a slight irritation from the character and reflect his anger at the fact that we are struggling. I also used lexis' such as 'should not' and 'need to be' to show the certainty and a strong belief in his opinion. This definitely portrayed the fact that he would not be persuaded otherwise and that he does not really have an interest in what others may think, as he believes his opinion is correct.

I did not use many facts or statistics in the blog as I wanted the character to be giving his opinion. I wanted his opinion to be strong and I tried to present this strength by not involving numbers and just writing from his perspective. I imagined this character to have developed his opinion from reading a lot about the subject. That is why I decided he would be very educated on the topic. I did all this by making the blog very one sided. For example 'Britain is becoming overcrowded'. This statement is to the point and does not leave room for any other opinion. The word 'is' could have been 'may be' but I decided this would have made it seem as if he had less of a strong opinion.

The idiolect of the second character was meant to be a young 26 year old man who's opinion was quite weak and did not know a lot about the topic. I wrote this blog a lot more informally and tried to show the unsure side of the character. I started the blog with 'I don't think' compared to blog 1 that started with 'I believe'. I did this as I wanted the audience to see how the characters were different to each other from their opening lines. The 'I think' shows he is unsure about his own opinion as it is just a thought. In the second paragraph I wrote 'immigration may not need decreasing'. The words 'may not' shows that he is not definite about this. The use of words such as 'in my opinion' reflects that he is not sure whether he is correct, it is just his personal beliefs. I think this shows a real contrast of the idiolect from the other blog as the first character was very definite about right and wrong. I ended the blog with 'Obviously you and others have different opinions to mine for fair reasons but this is mine.' This reflects how he is not trying to be argumentative and is accepting of others opinions unlike he fist blogger.

I made the second blog quite short because I really wanted to show almost a lack of background knowledge on the topic from. I wanted the person to have maybe come across the others blog by accident and just want to give their opinion without being educated on the topic. I also tried portraying this by showing a sense of openness to others opinions. 'Obviously you and others have different opinions to mine for fair reasons but this is mine' is the final sentence the person writes. I did this to really show the characters idiolect and acceptance of the others opinion.   

The blog is written with a smaller and less formal vocabulary than the first blog to show the age gap and also to reflect the different the different levels of intelligence/ability between the two. The use of 'don't' instead of 'do not' in the second blog is a subtle contrast with the grammar in the first.

I wanted to make the two idiolects different and have them contrast with each other. I tried to make not only their opinions different but also their writing style and their knowledge on the topic. I did this because someone may find this blog from searching the topic of immigration on Google and it may interest them more if there are two completely different views on the topic from two opposite people. I think this would mean the audience of the blog would be people who already have some knowledge of immigration and are interested in different opinions on it. This blogs purpose would be to persuade people one way or the other.