Transcript

1.At the beginning of the transcript the barrister uses proper nouns when referring to the witness "Mr Neil" and the man on trail "Mr Peterson".This is because they are key subjects in the matter,therefore important so want everyone else within the jury to understand and not be confused as to who the barrister is referring to when he uses second person pronouns.By the barrister including their names at the beginning at the beginning makes the witness (Mr Neil) want to engage due to it coming across more politely.However after he gains Mr Neil's attention,he refers to him as 'you' letting him know that he is lower than the barrister but also so Mr Neil knows that the questions are being directed to him.The receiver (being Mr Neil) may not expect the barrister to use proper nouns as it may give the witness a feeling of authority,on the other hand could make him feel more isolated and under pressure as all eyes and attention is on him.

2.Where the barrister includes facts about the event "Mr Peterson of having shopped you to the police..." comes across as being prepared dialogue as he is using facts which are therefore already put in place for him.By it also being exaggerated implies that the barrister feels confident with his point and so knows it is going to make Mr Neil feel on edge.This informs the witness that he knows key facts from the event but at the same time tries to prompt Mr Neil into confessing that the allegations put in front of him are true.

Where Mr Neil answers question after a long pause implies that he was not prepared for that question but also could mean that he has something to hide "(2.5)no". As he replies with a one word answer gives the impression that he wants this question to be over fast.

3.As soon as the barrister starts talking you can tell he has the power due to him not only starting of the dialogue, he uses brief pauses to emphases his points he is about to make,adds suspense and draws in all the attention, allowing the audience to briefly think about what he is saying "according to you Mr Neil(.) this ill feeling (.)..." this shows confidence as he is not rushing and wants to be heard clearly.However towards the end of his sentence he starts using filled pauses suggesting that the barrister is feeling more under pressure or does not know how to put is point across.Therefore he could be feeling a bit uptight "when er you have er".Not only does this not make sense it suggests that the barrister is not feeling confident with what he is saying which could make the witness feel more powerful as he is showing his nerves.
The witness is showing power when he interrupts the barrister as this shows courage.The barrister starts of asking a question but it interrupted by Mr Neil before he finishes "you cant remember whether they came to see you" before he can say "or not?" Mr Neil overlaps him by saying "i dont think they did no" implying that he wants to make is clear that he is telling the truth and does not remember the police coming.This shows power as he is taking over.
The barrister shows power when he emphasis' due to it showing certainty about the facts he is bringing forward which hopefully will make the witness back down and feel timid,powerless and out of control as everything is coming out with him having no control over it. "the police have been to see you so many times Mr Neil" the use of a discourse marker "so" emphasis' the point about the police been to see Mr Neil before.

4.The last question from the barrister seems puzzling and unusual due to it coming across as though he/she is backing down to the witness " that didn't cross your mind at all? because he adds "...at all?" on the end makes it seem more friendly and less demanding.Whereas if the barrister just asked bluntly 'that didn't cross your mind?' seems more stub-an and forward.Also because Mr Neil interrupts the barrister when he/she says "at all?"with a blunt "no" leaves the dialogue with the witness having the power as not only does he end the dialogue with a powerful one worded answer,It suggests that he is getting frustrated with the barrister and showing this by being blunt.This implies that the barrister may now feel timid and the witness feels as though he has authority over the situation.

Same Sex marriages-the controversial issue.

My controversial issue I have discussed is same sex marriages, as I feel it is an issue that is part of our everyday life and therefore important to get a prospective of peoples opinions.Blogger one expresses that she believes same sex marriages should be "celebrated".This suggests that she sees t as a party and therefore people should enjoy individuality and come together.Same sex marraiges also comes across that the issue is deep within Paige's heart as her first sentence is very passionate as she uses the hyperbole "immensely".This word that she believes this to an exceeding extent.
By her using an elipses emphasises and adds tension to the point she is about to make "if they are in love...then they should be allowed to express it".This shows how powerful paige thinks love is.By her using the verb "should" implies that Paige believes same sex marraiges should be honoured and makes the reciever feel they should believe this to.By paige including someone elses opinion within her blog suggests that many people feel the same way even in different cultures "Ms Thus from Amsterdam".As Ms Thus is from Amsterdam this contoversial issue seems more substansial as it is a world wide problem.

Blogger two comes across as though he is questionning peoples views on same sex marriages as he asks a lot of rhetorical questions "its a free world right?" This implies that Liam feels that his opinion should not be looked down on anymore than anyone elses even if you dont agree.The word "free" suggests privacy and independence which questions as to why Liam disagrees with same sex marriages.This could imply that his opinion has been driven into him and that deep down he has some sympathy for gay/lesbian couples.Blogger two also puts someones view in that disagrees with his own " I know that some people are like 'but what normal?' " this shows that some people believe there is no definition for a normal relationship as everyone is unique.This implies that he is trying to persuade people to be against same sex marriages.However, as Liam disagrees with this, he replies with a response of " I think normal is a man and a woman getting married". This gives the impression that Liam does not like change and is very old fashoined and does things by the book.Tis could also be the reason as to why he includes religious views " God created man and woman to be as one".This suggests that he believes everything in life (not just same sex marriages) should have a structure.

Blogger two uses an exclamation mark after the first sentence"Same sex marriages shouldn't be allowed" this suggests he (Liam) is shouting it and therefore wants it to be heard; showing how strong his feeings are about same sex marriages not being allowed.Due to this, I understand that there is no changing Liam's opinion.Liam also seems to be a christain who sees same sex marriages as going against God.This gives the impression that he does not like change and is not very excepting to 'difference' "same sex marraiges in the house of God is disrespectful" The word "is" suggests that is is a fact that same sex marriages within churches are disrespectful towards God so there is no changing that.The noun "house" suggests family,warmth and safety which implies that Blogger two does not except same sex marraiges into this family.It also implies that due to families knowing everything about eachover,  he just does not understand them and know how to treat the situation which could make the receiver feel sorry for Laim as he feels scared and confused.

Blogger one-I agree immensely that same sex marriages should be allowed and celebrated as much as any other couple on this earth.If they are in love...then they should be aloud to express it like any other human on this earth.Different cultures,religions and beliefs are nurtured and spoken freely so it is only right that same sex marriages are welcomed into our loving society.They are just ordinary people you see everyday.I disagree with making other people feel bad about themselves-especially if they cant help it! I wouldn't like it and I do not believe that anyone in that matter would like to be discriminated and not allowed the same privileges as others due to their sex life. Such as Ms Thus from Amsterdam says "We are so ordinary, if you saw us on the street you'd just walk right past us,".
I am not the only one who feels this way as the Netherlands have allowed same sex marriages for 12 years and many other countries (like Britain who have followed suit).

Blogger two- Same sex marriages shouldn't be allowed! in my opinion marriage should be between a man and a woman,God made males and females to love one another,get married to declare their love and have children.I know some people are like 'but whats normal? whats love?' but I strongly believe normal is a man and a woman getting married to allow a child to be brought up in a sustainable living environment."the Vatican - in an attempt to stop further legislation - launched a global campaign against gay marriage" and I don't see the harm in expressing their views on the matter.Its a free world right?
I don't agree with same sex marriages being aloud to get married in the house of God due to God creating man and woman to be as one,But civil partnerships I can tolerate.I completely see eye to eye with Denmark who were " the first country to introduce civil partnerships for same-sex couples, in 1989, but it stopped short of allowing church weddings".Yes they want to show that they are in love and want something to show for it and Yes a civil partnership can do that but i am in opposition with them getting a legal ceremony within a church as I do admit, same sex marriages in the house of God is disrespectful as it goes against his creation within marriage.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-21321731

The refugee crisis

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/04/syrian-refugee-crisis-why-has-it-become-so-bad
http://sunnewsonline.com/new/uk-to-accept-20000-refugees-from-syria-by-2020/

Both of these articles about the refugee crisis emphasis how important help and aid are needed in Syria.The guardian have included how rich countries have been helping Syria and its people " rich countries have given to UNHCR to deal with the problem – leaving a gap of almost 40% between what it needs and what has been donated."This suggests that countries that can afford to help have been and therefore shows sympathy and love between countries-when it comes down to the people within the countires,everyone is willing to help.Because they have left "a gap of almost 40%" implies that they have given all that they can.On the other hand it could be down the  "UN bodies working with millions of refugees in Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon are complaining that they are running out of money".Because they are "complaining" gives the impression that they arent grateful for the money that has been given;making the rich countires who have donated being left feeling annoyed and frustrated as they have helped out of choice.
The second Article has also spoken about the help and aid given to Syrians but unlike The guardian which have spoken about the help given from rich countires, The Sun have only just spoken about what the UK have gave "The UK will accept up to 20,000 refugees from Syria over the next five years, David Cameron has told MPs".As this is the first sentence in the whole article,it expresses how important The Sun sees it as being and that people of Britain need to see how considerate David Cameron is being (which gives the impression that he may well be trying to win support as it makes him seem more kindearted).The word "accept" suggests that the UK dont really want the Syrian refugees in its however out of kindness are giving them concent.

Both of these articles also talk about how the help towards Syrians will be in years to come and after they have made to move into there countries.The first article talks about what Turkey have done with taking in refugees." Turkey is not a country for people to stay in for the long term... taking in about 2 million Syrian refugees. But Syrians do not have the right to work there legally"Although Turkey dont want to make them citizens of there country and stay there perminently they have still taken in a stagering "2 million Syrian refugees".
This is different to the Uk which have said that the refugees "can stay for five years, have the right to work and access public funds. After five years they can apply to settle in the UK." This suggests that when it comes to stability within its own conutry,the Uk is all for and and feel more comfortable when it comes to helping within its own country.Unlike Turkey which have stated that refugees cant "work there legally"Britain are allowing refugees start a new life in the Uk which will make Syrains feel more welcomed.However by using the statement "have the right to" gives the impression that they are under strict rules and what the government tell them to do, they have to obey.This is different to the first article from The Guardian as Turkey are making the refugees not feel as welcome and want them out of there hair as soon as they can.

Article- How young people are changing the English language

language evolution or just laziness?

Many young people in our day in age are using 'text talk' away from the comfort of their phones. Bae, Fleek and lol are some of the many phrases that make up the 'banter' between young people.You could create a whole new dictionary dedicated to this way of speaking.Complimenting people with the words beautiful,gorgeous and amazing have been taken over by the now new common phrases such as on point (meaning that they are the best) and fresh (meaning new and in the fashion).Is this new way of speaking classed as normal? 

10%  out of 2,000 parents surveyed know what bae (before anyone else) mean, compared to the estimated 80% of young people.This is my eyes, shows how separated the generations have become and how the new language that has been created through our screens,have leaped out and changed the world.But is this ruining standard English? A study has been done by John Sutherland, professor of English from University college London who has found that many parents are baffled by the way their children speak.Is it something to be ashamed of?This language evolution is powerful...so powerful in fact, that young people from all over the world are speaking in this form.

But is this evolution or just laziness?

 These shortened down bits of language are purely there to make sending messages to another quicker and easier...but is it? Not everyone understands the term cbb (cant be bothered) or m8 (mate) so as this way of speaking is altering the way that children communicate away from the screen,The Queens English is going to be extinct in years to come as young people grow up!Is the next Prime minister going to be calling all his Mp's Bae? It sounds unprofessional,informal and un-classy! Its seen as unnatural for young people to not understand these terms within the younger generation.Feels unnatural to the younger generation to use words such as are and okay correctly.As research has proven that 'Two-in-three teachers reported that they regularly find text-speak in pupil's homework.Over three-quarters of parents say they have to clarify the cryptic text-speak in their children's texts and emails'.Young people are finding it hard work to text,write and now speak using standard English with some even finding 'text talk' an effort.Communicating via emoji's  is a big trend also, with people expression how they feel with a sad or happy face, or even creating a whole sentence out the 722 emoji's available.Posting it on Instagram,Snap chat and Twitter people know what they're talking about.

What does the future hold when it comes to language? Is the English language going to be no more? is it evolution or just laziness? 
... you decide.

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

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







I think that within my article I have include a lot of examples and reasons as to why "text talk" is being used more
In our society however it could be improved by including
What over people may say and quotes from young people themselves.

Taglines and there patterns

Many companies and business such as L'Oreal use words such as 'you' and 'your' within their slogans and catchphrases. L'Oreal use the catchphrase 'Come on girls lets say it...because your worth it' this makes the audience feel special and that they are addressing it to only you ,as they profess that they know you individually.This also implies that they are acknowledging the fact that you 'deserve it' which could make the target audience (in this case girls) connect to the brand and think to themselves "i deserve a product from L'Oreal". By them saying the word 'lets' implies that they are a team and see themselves as equal to there audience which could invite girls in as you feel welcomed.Other companies which have used pronouns within their slogan are: Burger king 'have it your way' which implies that whatever you want, they will have and therefore cater, which suggests that they are speaking to all who enjoy 'good' tasting burgers, Smoking with 'filter your life' which is like a demand and an instruction into smoking.These two slogans come across as negative due to smoking and fast food being bad for you which implies that deep down the companies don't actually care about you and your health, but are more interested into making money.

Other companies and brands such as the chocolate bar penguin use sound to grab your attention and make their slogan stand out and stay memorable. 'p-p-p-pick up a penguin' uses the repeated sound of the 'p' which may draw the younger audience in due to it being more fun to say.On the other hand,  people who have a stutter may find this offensive as they are using their "speech disability" as a way to draw in costumers.Cornflakes have used  'they're Grrreat' as there slogan which emphasis's the fact that it is great and so you should have them.This pattern of using sound is more common when food is being advertised, and this could be because there are many different types of the same food such as chocolate bars,cereals etc... and so they want people to remember their brand and by doing so,try and make the slogan unique.

As well has Smoking using an instruction within their slogan,Nike have also done this 'Just do it'. This suggests that even if you are unsure into whether or not to buy a Nike item,
 you should...Just do it!  
This tagline is so powerful that it is seen as  "one of the top two taglines of the 20th century with it being both "universal and intensely personal". I think this is the case as you can relate to it in many different situations such as whether or not to apply for a job...Just do it, or to travel to America...Just do it.Because Nike could have inspired you in this way, you will feel like giving something back and so buy a Nike product.
Coke have also used an instruction within their tagline 'share a coke with...' because they include a name on their coke bottles also makes it very personal and as though that drink was made for you.This also has side effects such as: if your name wasn't on a coke bottle, you may feel secluded and unworthy of a coke as you feel as though it wasn't made for you and you aren't the target audience.This could lead to coke loosing costumers and in the future, becoming less popular.

There are many different patterns used within taglines,slogans and catchphrases and this could be down to these methods working and appealing to that certain audience.

Diversity- accents?

Is it okay to judge people on the accent they have? Is it okay to pre-judge their intelligence by the way they speak ?

 Beryl Bainbridge thinks so.She quotes she wants all regional accents to be "wiped out"and recommends children to take elocution lessons.Especially those with a Liverpool twang which she "hates".Research has also shown that people with a  Liverpool or Birmingham accent are less appealing to employers.This doesn't surprise me as although i find it wrong and selfish, people from these backgrounds have very strong accents and this could be the reason in to why employers see it as "less acceptable" as people may find it hard to understand them.But cant people just except that people do speak with different accents?

 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/289882.stm

English language L1

In English language we were discussing why some people hate certain words and also why some people like certain words.I found that most of the words people dislike are words that have had there meanings changed.For example, the word "literally" wasn't used for the literal manner or sense,but was being used for when people were describing something that has happened.I also found that these words were used frequently by people ,which could suggest that although they use these words themselves,they don't agree with how it changes the English language and makes words become "slang".This could also suggest that people are embarrassed with using these words and therefore dislike them.

I also found that people chose whether or not they liked the word by their sound or meaning.Such as, the word "honey" was liked because the food itself was enjoyed (the meaning) but the word "sprout" wasn't liked due to the person disliking the taste of sprouts.This was a common pattern within the food groups.Words such as 'peng' however were disliked because of there sound and this made people cringe within themselves when they heard the word.This is different to the word 'lush' that was liked by the way it sounds.This is unusual as both words 'peng' and 'lush' are both used to describe something that is liked and just by what word is used, determines the way you look at it.