Friday, 5 July 2013
Tuesday, 2 July 2013
Preliminary Activity
Task
Chose an aspect of theory (e.g. FTA's and politeness strategies) in your chosen area and write a paragraph or two about in in three different versions.
1. A men's or women's magazine e.g. GQ or Elle
In a men/women's magazine, they editors of the magazine always use "positive politeness" to engage with the reader. They use this strategy to make the reader either feel good about themselves, their interests or possessions, or in some cases, they know the target audience pretty well. The main attempt is to avoid a conflict between the editor & the reader so they can maintain a relationship, so they will use strategies of friendship, compliments to keep the reader engaged. Sometimes they'll use exaggeration in the readers interests to manipulate the reader into thinking that they care about the editor really does care about the reader. This is normally used when both participants know each other.
Chose an aspect of theory (e.g. FTA's and politeness strategies) in your chosen area and write a paragraph or two about in in three different versions.
1. A men's or women's magazine e.g. GQ or Elle
In a men/women's magazine, they editors of the magazine always use "positive politeness" to engage with the reader. They use this strategy to make the reader either feel good about themselves, their interests or possessions, or in some cases, they know the target audience pretty well. The main attempt is to avoid a conflict between the editor & the reader so they can maintain a relationship, so they will use strategies of friendship, compliments to keep the reader engaged. Sometimes they'll use exaggeration in the readers interests to manipulate the reader into thinking that they care about the editor really does care about the reader. This is normally used when both participants know each other.
Sample Data Evaluation
Data Collected- Kevin Keegan "I'll Love it if we beat them" Interview
1) Which Predictions were correct?
I predicted that I would find Brown & Levison's Politeness Theory, Uncertainty features & the use of hedges. What I predicted that i would find in the transcript did appear when I began analysing. However, some of what I predicted wasn't worth commenting on in my investigation as it was either not comparable, r there wasn't enough evidence to back up a certain theory that i could of discussed about.
2) What else was in the data worth exploring?
The only other piece of theory that I could of explored was the use of uncertainty features. However, I soon discovered that all the pauses in the transcript were intentional, and not a sign of uncertainty. Also, in the clip, Kevin Keegan's facial expression isn't a sign of uncertainty, more a sign of urgency.
3) Was the data challenging enough, scientific enough & linked to theory?
The data was linked to theory (Language & Power) which I've already know a lot about so it was pretty easy to link Language & Power theory to my transcript. I would have preferred the transcript to be a little bit longer so I could go a little more in depth with my theory.
4) Was there enough/too much data for 1500 words of analysis ? How much would be suitable to collect and still be reliable/comparable ?
There wasn't enough data to write 1500 words of analysis, and it also meant that my theory evidence was a little short. I would probably collect about 4 or 5 interviews and compare what features they all have in common. To make sure that the interviews were reliable, I'd make sure that it is the official interview & I calready have access to these clips.
1) Which Predictions were correct?
I predicted that I would find Brown & Levison's Politeness Theory, Uncertainty features & the use of hedges. What I predicted that i would find in the transcript did appear when I began analysing. However, some of what I predicted wasn't worth commenting on in my investigation as it was either not comparable, r there wasn't enough evidence to back up a certain theory that i could of discussed about.
2) What else was in the data worth exploring?
The only other piece of theory that I could of explored was the use of uncertainty features. However, I soon discovered that all the pauses in the transcript were intentional, and not a sign of uncertainty. Also, in the clip, Kevin Keegan's facial expression isn't a sign of uncertainty, more a sign of urgency.
3) Was the data challenging enough, scientific enough & linked to theory?
The data was linked to theory (Language & Power) which I've already know a lot about so it was pretty easy to link Language & Power theory to my transcript. I would have preferred the transcript to be a little bit longer so I could go a little more in depth with my theory.
4) Was there enough/too much data for 1500 words of analysis ? How much would be suitable to collect and still be reliable/comparable ?
There wasn't enough data to write 1500 words of analysis, and it also meant that my theory evidence was a little short. I would probably collect about 4 or 5 interviews and compare what features they all have in common. To make sure that the interviews were reliable, I'd make sure that it is the official interview & I calready have access to these clips.
Analysis of my Sample Data
Analysis of my Sample Data
Face Threatening Acts in Kevin Keegan's "I'll love it if we beat them" Interview
Face Threatening Acts in Kevin Keegan's "I'll love it if we beat them" Interview
My investigation was to see how football managers use their
power during a live interview. I chose Kevin Keegan's famous "I'll love it
if we beat them" interview on Sky Sports. From the transcript of the
interview, I noticed that Keegan used a lot of FTA's (Face Threatening Acts)
throughout the course of the interview. At the beginning of the interview, the
pundits (Richard Keys & Andy Gray) have the upper hand as Keegan take a
considerable amount of time before replying to the question. Eventually, Keegan
begins to take a hold on the interview by saying "I think you gotta send Alex Ferguson a tape of this game haven't ya (.)
Isn’t that what he asked for". This is an example of Negative
Politeness, which means that Keegan will be imposing his demands on the
listeners & there is a higher risk for embarrassment or awkwardness. Keegan also use upward inflections at the end
of his answers. As the interview progresses, Keegan continues to assert his
authority, slowly progressing form negative politeness, to Bald-on record, an
example of this would be when he says “when
you drew that with footballers” which he says with great urgency and
efficiency as he believes it is needed to get his point across to Keys &
Gray. He also uses great urgency when he dictates that Stuart Pearce “went down in his estimation”. At the end
of the interview, Keegan ends by saying “I
will love it if we beat them (.) Love it” with an even greater intensity
than he did before. Keegan also uses a
lot of idioms such as “he went down in my
estimation”, “we have not resorted to
that” and “were still fighting for
this title” which are common phrases that the audience, particularly
football fans will understand to a greater degree. By then end, the whole
interview has turned into an unequal encounter, where Keegan has much more
power than Keys & Gray did at the start of the interview.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)