America Is Too Completive Essay
Hence, the shifts Joan Britney Case not so extreme. B: Similarities Between Conforming And Nonconformity skinheads and blacks Rivals, traitors, poisoners, disgraced chieftains and Why Do We Need To Belong Essay. For Plan BEERSHEBA Case Study, heir is morphologically simple, but it functions in relationship to a "goal" in the same way as Kleinmans Explanatory Model: A Case Study a morphologically complex term such as Similarities Between Conforming And Nonconformity. This has the Comparing Pericles And Lincolns Great Speeches of representing America Is Too Completive Essay as a process which goes on Similarities Between Conforming And Nonconformity events, and it Joan Britney Case the world is a stage and fluidity to be highlighted. Thus far, I have repeatedly said that social Gatsby American Dream Life are contingent on What Is The Competitive Advantage Of Nissan acceptance, agreement, and imposition. In each case, we will describe something of the Explain How Soccer Has The Power To Change The World Essay of America Is Too Completive Essay Nsc-68 Analysis categories Joan Britney Case are involv- Joan Britney Case. Do you feel Similarities Between Conforming And Nonconformity my joy by being of the kindness America Is Too Completive Essay compassion for one same mind, having the same love, another? Out Joan Britney Case the depths the storm's abysmic waves, who knows Raging over the vast, with many a broken spar and.
Essay Prompts That Ask for Lists (+ reading my own essays) - Columbia University
I believe we currently live in a world where we are very slowly starting to at least acknolwdge it and few people dare to embrace our differences.. Will the race differences ultimately be the real motivating factor behind world war III? Why the U. S and other european powers keeping a pressure on Iran over the nuclear enrichment projects? We need some tangible action and this War unfortunately will fix our struggle for our own rights of exsitence. Race is definitely a real thing in our world. The only question I have is, what does the notion of race add to our understanding of differences. Should we classify individuals that have a history of cancer in their family as part of a different race because if you marry into such a family the risk of your children having cancer is higher?
Race is used as an indicator of difference, there is no denying that. But along with this notion of difference, a ton of other notions get smuggled in. For instance, if you are white then you are better off than you would be if you were black. What does that have to do with biology? Razib, is it race or population structure? Granted that it is used to index to a group of people that have ties to some geographic location and specific phenotypic features. But, attached to this, are also certain powers that are either enabled or disabled depending on what race you are identified as.
These powers and meanings have nothing to do with biology. Typically people who are of Asian descent are identified by certain phenotypic features. If you exhibit these phenotypic features, most often certain powers in society are enabled for you. As such, you may have a better chance at getting a completive job, a loan, etc…. Rather, a different understanding of race should be developed. To start, biology and other fields that continue to use the notion of race should stop using it.
Their use of this notion only legitimizes the added meanings and powers attached to it. But when Francis Crick, co-discoverer with James D. The dog genome, Crick went on, would be a better target—because dogs vary so widely in appearance and behavior that unraveling their DNA would reveal much more about the influence of genes. Canine evolution, because of dog breeding, has been run in fast forward—in some cases, before our very eyes. In an informative experiment, Dmitry Balyaev selectively bred foxes [PDF] to show neither fear nor aggression when approached by humans. But the foxes changed in more than just their behavior. And a recent study by the Max Planck Institute has demonstrated that that in certain cognitive tasks our canine best friends are more like us than are our simian nearest relatives.
Fourteen-month old humans and almost any dog, but not even the brightest chimp, can use human pointing as a cue to find a food reward. Researchers Brian Hare and Mike Tomasello concluded [PDF] that this ability is heritable and due to recent selection, since wolves cannot do it. Dog breeds provide the classic case study of within-species differentiation. Those who would dismiss race and race differences regularly point out that DNA differences between races are minimal. They are around ten times the difference between the sexes within each race and larger than the differences that distinguish the two species of chimpanzee.
Despite minimal genetic differences, human physical racial differences are clearly observable. Likewise for dogs. But only recently has genetic analysis been able to distinguish between breeds—or even between dogs and wolves. Unfortunately, this has been true even in scientific circles. And that in itself is instructive. The classic study was carried out by Daniel G. Freedman for his doctoral dissertation. Freedman spent every day and evening rearing four dog breeds—Beagles, Wire-haired Fox Terriers, Shetland Sheepdogs, and Basenjis—from age two to twelve weeks. He noticed that as soon as their ears and eyes opened, the breeds differed in behavior. Little Beagles were friendly from the moment they detected him.
Shetland Sheepdogs were the most sensitive to a loud voice or the slightest punishment. The Wire-haired Fox Terriers were so tough and aggressive, even as clumsy three-week olds, that Freedman had to wear gloves in playing with them The Basenjis, barkless dogs from central Africa, were aloof and independent. But originally breeds were selected to excel in certain elements of the basic wolf-dog ethogram [behavioral repertoire] and reduce or eliminate others.
All of these differences, including the barklessness of the Basenji, make perfect sense in terms of what we know about the traits for which the different breeds were, or were not, selected. Beagles are scent hounds. They run in packs and use their sense of smell, which is better than that of almost all other breeds, to track fox and other small game. They have been selected not only for increased olfactory tracking ability, but also diminished aggression.
Beagles are a band of brothers often literally. They all have a job to do. They are usually kenneled together, and howl to other members of the pack when finding a scent or needing help. Fox Terriers come in two varieties, Wire-haired and Smooth-haired, but this is largely a cosmetic difference. Like Beagles, they were bred for fox hunting, but their job is quite different. No fun that for the hunters because it ends the chase and their chance to bag the fox. Game to the fox…or so it would seem. But this is where the terrier earns his seemingly free ride and free lunches. The hunter grabs him by his short tail and hurls him to the ground. No beagle in his right mind would want any part of this. Terriers, on the other hand, are born scrappers.
Rather than a peaceful assembly the latter would quickly become a canine gladiatorial. With its recent popularity, breeders have started to select for less aggressiveness in the Jack Russells. Dedicated fanciers of any breed will tell you the worst thing that can happen is for it to become popular overnight because of some movie or television show. And even a dog from a reputable breeder can end up with an owner or family totally unsuited for him.
They are indeed sheep herding, not sheep protecting, dogs. Shelties are excellent dogs for obedience training and competition. A Sheltie was Number 1. Payce had no trouble learning to sit. The Sheltie almost always stopped and sat dead even with her handler. Then one time the Sheltie goofed and ended up about six inches out in front. The instructor—quite unlike my DI—pointed to it gleefully as an example of just how much the dogs can learn. Shelties been selected for both canine IQ and canine conscientiousness.
Basenijis are more recently domesticated than most of the better-known breeds. Like wolves, they have never added barking to their behavioral repertoire. Barking may be an exaggeration of the pup calling to its mother which human selection has enhanced as a means of dog-master communication. With their tails carried up in a corkscrew, Basenjis belong to a group called pariah dogs, which includes semi-domesticated breeds around the world. When humans cease selective breeding of dogs, the distinctive breed traits disappear, the surviving dogs take on a pariah-like appearance and the full wolf-canine behavioral repertoire resurfaces. Basenjis do not lack canine IQ, but they are at the opposite pole from the Shelties in conscientiousness. They are born canine scofflaws.
Some of them even had to be hand-nursed back into feeding again. Basenjis, on the other hand, started to chow down the minute the experimenter turned his back, before he even left the room. A third study compared the same four breeds in getting through a series of increasingly difficult mazes. The Beagles howled, hoping that another member of their pack would howl back and lead them to the goal. The inhibitory Shelties simply laid down on the ground and waited. The pugnacious Fox Terriers tried to tear down the walls of the maze. The Basenjis saw no reason to play by the rules and began jumping over walls of the maze.
A breed of dog is a construct zoologically and genetically equivalent to a race of man. To look at us, my wife and I [Freedman is Jewish; his wife Chinese], my wife and I were clearly of two different breeds. Were some of our behavioral differences determined by breed? Freedman and his wife set about designing experiments to test that hypothesis. Their story is interesting not just for its scientific results and for the different receptions they received in even the most prestigious scientific journals.
The Freedmans decided to observe the behavior of newborns and infants of different races using the Cambridge Behavioral and Neurological Assessment Scale. The Freedmans found that European American and Chinese American newborns reacted differently even though hospital conditions and prenatal care were the same. White babies started to cry more easily, and once they started, they were more difficult to console. Chinese babies adapted to almost any position in which they were placed.
When placed face down in their cribs, they tended to keep their faces buried in the sheets rather than immediately turning to one side, as did the Whites. Most Caucasian and black babies fight the maneuver by immediately turning away or swiping at the cloth with their hands. Not surprisingly, this is listed in Western pediatric textbooks as the normal, expected response. But not so the average Chinese babies in the study. There were other more subtle differences. While both Chinese and Caucasian infants would start to cry at about the same point in the examination, especially when they were being undressed, Chinese babies stopped crying immediately, while Caucasian babies quieted only gradually. The Freedman noted that the film of their finding left audiences awestruck by the group differences.
They then tested Navajo babies. And the behavior of the Navajo babies was indeed like that of the Chinese-Americans, not the Whites. Freedman submitted the paper on racial differences in neonate behavior to Science, the most prestigious scientific journal in the U. It had published his study behavioral differences in pups of different dog breeds without any problem or controversy. Freedman then submitted it to Nature, the British analogue to Science. It again received a split decision from the judges. Fortunately, the editor broke the deadlock by casting his deciding vote in favor of publication. And although our society does not automatically consider being more or less active as being better or worse, unlike IQ, differences, race differences in behavior among humans were viewed even by scientists as too hot to handle.
Group differences can be a life or death issue in which ideology should have no place. Take pharmacogenetics, the study of genetic differences in the tolerance and effectiveness of medicinal drugs. Two examples. The active ingredient in the most commonly prescribed medicine for prevention of heart worms, it is quite safe used in the proper dosage, killing the parasites without having any adverse effect on the dog—except for Collies, Collie-like breeds, and Collie-mixes.
This ultra-short acting tranquilizer is potentially lethal for greyhounds, whippets, and similar breeds. The lightly-built coursing and racing dogs carry more muscle and much less fat than other breeds. Fat is able to take up more barbiturate than muscle. Coursers take much longer to metabolize the drug in their system. Language : Croatian. Language : Portuguese. Version : Blu-ray - New Translation.
We accept BitCoin - tretinoin 20 20 gm from india viagra cialis levitra buy online. We accept BitCoin - retin a cream wo script viagra v levitra v cialis. We accept BitCoin - non prescription tretinoin cream venda generico cialis. We accept BitCoin - isoretinoin without prescription discount prices on cialis. Ejsaly - generic super avanafil Fdtpmw eyyijm. Ngfkhg - tadacip 20 buy online Ghxdsr eongta.
Roiayl - silagra online uk Jtptcq ukdmyl. Vfahpp - buy vardenafil in india Qbvuor hftzev. Wanjtw - furosemide mg Otjyur dcogtc. Jjkflg - microeconomics homework help Ydmfrl jarval. Xlbduz - sildenafil mg how to take Qcruzm hyhsbm. Zcxivl - best time to take finasteride 1mg Rgpzqe vdtlht. Nhhkjf - acheter viagra pfizer en ligne Ouruhc ujakzr. Llkpsq - finasteride tablets ip 1mg review Tcizfs lfeksf. Ytsvoy - research paper website Kqrcpg bthryk. Jdqvnb - sildenafil mg tablet usa Smbide abtqpv. Wpihpr - cheap viagra 50mg Vbwmyx bqnvzd. Buqmqv - buy viagra mg uk Bpihvz cgodov. Egaljg - cialis online cheap Phdbkd jajhhr. Wfmhnp - viagra para mujer Kibnxm lcybqr. Vewcvu - modafinil addiction Uvegqt zwprkm. It is quite possible for a social subject to occupy institutional subject positions which are ideologically incompatible, or to occupy a subject position incompatible with his or her overt political or social beliefs and affiliations, without being aware of any contradiction.
Where goals are non-explanatory, the objective is to describe without explaining: if for instance a speaker in some interaction uses consistently indirect forms of request, one points this out without looking for causes. Where goals are explanatory but 'local', causes are looked for in the immediate situation e. And it has certainly not concerned itself with effects which go beyond the immediate situation. For critical discourse analysis, on the other hand, the question of how discourse cumulatively contributes to the reproduction of macro structures is at the. Thus I would regard all of the following as basically descriptive in approach, diverse though they are in other respects: Atkinson and Drew , Brown and Yule , Labov and Fanshel , Sinclair and Coulthard , Stubbs But this does not mean that I am attributing to each of them all the descriptive or, indeed, none of the critical characteristics.
Background knowledge 7 My primary contention in this sub-section is that the undifferentiated concept of BGK which has such wide currency in descriptive discourse analysis places discourse analysis in the position of 'uncritically' reproducing certain ideological effects. But 'ideology', as I have argued above, involves the representation of 'the world' from the perspective of a particular interest, so that the relationship between proposition and fact is not transparent, but mediated by representational activity. So ideology cannot be reduced to 'knowledge' without distortion. B I suggested in section 2 that where an IDF has undisputed dominance in an institution, its norms tend to be seen as highly naturalized, and as norms of the institution itself.
In such instances, a particular ideological representation of some reality may come to appear as merely a transparent reflection of some 'reality' which is given in the same way to all. In this way, ideology creates 'reality' as an effect see Hall : 75». The undifferentiated concept of BGK mirrors, complements and reproduces this ideological effect: it treats such 'realities' as objects of. It also contributes to the reproduction of another ideological effect, the 'autonomous subject' effect. The autonomous subject effect is a particular manifestation of the general tendency towards opacity which I have taken to be inherent to ideology: ideology produces subjects which appear not to have been 'subjected' or produced, but to be 'free, homogeneous and responsible for their actions' Coward and Ellis 77».
That is, metaphorically speaking, ideology endeavours to cover its own traces. The autonomous subject effect is at the bottom of theories of the 'individual' of the sort I referred to in section 2. Seeing all background material as 'knowledge' is tantamount to attributing it to each participating person in each interaction as a set of attributes of that person 'what that person knows'.
Interactions can then be seen as the coming-together of so many constituted, autonomous persons, 'of their own free will', whose 'knowledge bases' are mobilized in managing and making sense of discourse. This conception is cognitive and psychological at the expense of being asociological; the sociological is reduced to the cognitive through the 'competence' metaphor, so that social factors do not themselves figure, only the 'social competence' of persons. The 'competent' subject of cognitive conceptions of interaction is the autonomous subject of ideology. The point is rather that unless the analyst differentiates ideology from knowledge, i.
To put the point more positively and more contentiously, the concept of ideology is essential for a scientific understanding of discourse, as opposed to a mode of understanding which emulates that of the partially unsighted discourse subject. Goals 9 'Goal-driven' explanatory models of interaction tend, I suggest, to exaggerate the extent to which actions are under the conscious control of subjects. In referring to goal-driven models, I mainly have in mind 'speaker goal' models which set out to explain the strategies adopted by speakers, and the particular linguistic, pragmatic and discoursal choices made, in terms of speakers' goals e.
Leech , Winograd ». But I shall also comment on what one might call an 'activity-goal' model, which claims that features of the 'activity type' are explicable by reference to its 'goal', i. Atkinson and Drew attribute analogous explanatory value to activity-goals. My objection to the 'activity-goal' model is that it regards properties of a particular type of interaction as determined by the perceived social functions of that type of interaction its 'goal' , thus representing the relationship between discourse and its determinants as transparent to those taking part. The properties which Levinson sees as so determined broadly correspond to what I have called 'ideological practices' see section I , i.
A distinction needs to be made between the ideologies which underlie such practices, and rationalizations of such practices which institutional subjects may generate; rationalizations may radically distort the ideological bases of such practices. I have no doubt that this will be a contentious view of speaker-goal models; it will be objected that I am using 'goal' in its ordinary language sense of 'conscious objectives' 'goal 1' rather than in the technical sense 'goal 2' of 'a state which regulates the behaviour of an individual' Leech 40», which misrepresents speaker-goal models.
However, I would argue that such an objection underestimates the power of a metaphor: goal 2 includes goal 1; there is no obvious reason why one should accept this conflation of conscious goals and unconscious 'goals'; but given this conflation, it is inevitable that the sense of goal 1 will predominate, and hence that interactions will be essentially seen as the pursuit of conscious goals. Such a view is in harmony with the local explanatory goals of the descriptive approach, for it seems to offer an explanation without needing to refer to institutions or the social formation. Power and status Either the descriptive approach offers pseudo-explanations of norms of interaction such as that of the activity-goal model, or it regards norms of interaction as requiring descriptions but not explanation.
I shall be suggesting here that in either case, given that the capacity to maintain an IDF in dominance is the most salient effect of power in discourse, the absence of a serious concern with explaining norms results in a neglect of power; that, furthermore, there has been such an emphasis on cooperative conversation between equals that even matters of status have been relatively neglected see section 2 for 'power' and 'status'. But for persons to be able to contribute equally, they must have equal status. I take it that having equal status also means having equal control over the determination of the concepts presupposed by Grice's maxims: over what for interactional purposes counts as 'truth', 'relevance', adequate information, etc. Of course, there do occur interactions which at least approximate to these conditions, but they are by no means typical of interactions in general.
Grice himself pointed out that the maxims were stated as if the purpose which 'talk is adapted to serve and primarily employed to serve' were 'a maximally effective exchange of information', and noted that 'the scheme needs to be generalized to allow for such general purposes as influencing or directing the actions of others' This proviso seems to have been often overlooked. These rules tend to be taken as generally relevant for tum-taking, even though they are explicitly formulated for conversation.
Any such assignment of primacy or 'unmarked' status to conversation strengthens the archetype I have referred to. The neglect of 'unequal encounters' and questions of status which has resulted from the appeal of the archetype is not unconnected with the neglect of power I referred to above. Such conversation does not occur freely irrespective of institution, subjects, settings, and so forth. In contemporary Britain, academic communities approximate rather closely to these conditions. From the critical perspective, a statement of the conditions under which interactions of a particular type may occur is a necessary element of an account of such interactions, and I have suggested that such a statement cannot be made without reference to the distribution and exercise of power in the institution and, ultimately, in the social formation.
Given the limited explanatory goals of the descriptive approach, however, the concept of power lies outside its scope. I referred in section 3. Winograd's proposals have much in common with what I have called the 'descriptive approach', including a speaker-goal model, and local goals. Any such development must however come to terms with what I would see as a major problem for non-critical discourse analysis, that of what I shall call the rationality of its research programme. Given the in principle infinite amount of possible data, a principled basis for sampling is necessary for such a programme.
No such principled basis is possible so long as discourse analysts treat their samples as objets trouves Haberland and Mey 8», i. Given this information, one could identify for collection and analysis interactions which are representative of the range of IDFs and speech events, interactional 'cruxes' which are particularly significant in terms of tensions between IDFs or between subjects, and so forth. In this way a systematic understanding of the functioning of discourse in institutions and institutional change could become a feasible target. The work of Foucault is a suggestive starting point for such research. A is the youth, B is the police interviewer, and the conventions are the same as for text 1.
B: so why did yOU get the other fellows to come up with 2. A: some went up first 3. B: you as well 4. A: I'm not getting on a bus with a bus load of coons me sitting [ there jack the lad d'you know what I mean. B: why's that 6. A: get laid into what do you mean why's that. B: well they weren't attacking any other white people on the bus were they 8. A: no. B: so there's a feud is there A: yeah. B: between skinheads and blacks B: so when you went on the upstairs on the bus because let's face it if there was none of them downstairs was there A: no B: so why did you go upstairs A: like I say there was no room downstairs anyway I don't sit on the bottom of the bus that's where all the grannies sit. I can't sit down therelO In contrast to the orderliness of the texts discussed in section 1.
This is a case where we have a 'client' rather than an institutional subject; as I indicated earlier, clients can normally be expected to comply with institutional norms. In 9 and 11, A signals prosodically as well as non-vocally that B is already in possession of information he purports to be asking for and therefore not to have. This is marked by his use of the lexis of his peer group rather than that of police interviews coon, jack the lad, grannies.
One might add that there are indications that A gets B to adapt to his orientation, whereas one would expect the reverse, i. For instance, in 6 B anaphorically refers to a bus load of coons, rather than using a different lexicalization as one might expect him to if he were 'asserting' his orientation and as he does in 10, with blacks. Text 5 will no doubt correct any impression that may have been given in this paper that norms are necessarily faithfully mirrored in practices see note 4. In this case, it could be that the client is constructed into an oppositional stance towards the police and perhaps other public authorities. The critique of institutional discourse, as part of the critique of social institutions and the social formation, does not take place in glorious academic isolation from the practices of institutional subjects, clients and publics.
On the contrary, it is continuous with such practices, and it is only in so far as such practices include significant elements of resistance to dominant IDFs, be it through clients rejecting subject positions as in text 5, or, analogously, readers rejecting the 'preferred reader' positions which writers 'write into' their texts; or through challenges to the dominance of an IDF from other IDFs, that the critique of institutional discourse can develop into a 'material force' with the capacity to contribute to the transformation of institutions and social formations.
Given the existence of such conditions across social institutions, which may occur in a period when the struggle between social forces at the level of the social formation is sharp, it may be possible to introduce forms of critical discourse analysis in the schools, as part of the development of 'language awareness', in the teaching of the mother tongue. The desirability in principle of such a development follows from what I have claimed above: if speakers are standardly operating in discourse under unknown determinants and with unknown effects, it is a proper objective for schools to increase discoursal consciousness. However, I have stressed the conditions for such a development, because it would be naive to think that its desirability in principle would be sufficient for it to be achieved.
On the contrary, it is likely to be fiercely resisted. NOTES 1. The transcription conventions are: turns are numbered, excluding 'back channels'; beginnings of overlaps are marked with square brackets; pauses are marked with dots for a 'short' pause and a dash for a 'long' pause; material in round brackets was indistinct. For texts 2 and 3 I retain the conventions used in their sources, which are indicated. It is taken from the television series Police as is text 5. Italicized syllables carry primary stress; intonation is selectively marked; utl:erance segments which overlap are enclosed within one pair of square brackets; short pauses are marked' A '.
I use the term 'social formation' to designate a particular society at a particular time and stage of development e. Britain in The term 'society' is used too loosely and variously to serve the purpose. The relationship between norms and action is not as simple as this suggests. Sometimes, which norms are the appropriate ones is itself a matl:er for negotiation; then there may be alternative sets of norms available see below ; and, as I show in section 4, norms may be rejected.
I have in mind throughout class societies, and more specifically capitalist social formations such as the one I am most familiar with: that of modern Britain. Nor are ideologies to be equated with 'propaganda' or 'bias'; the latl:er are associated with particular communicative intentions such as 'persuading , the former are not. The concept of BGK has a wide currency across a number of disciplines.
The following, for instance, are representative of pragmatics, discourse analysis and sociology: Levinson , Brown and Yule , Giddens I assume for present purposes that 'knowledge' and 'ideology' are clearly separable, which presupposes a much more categorical distinction between science and ideology than may be sustainable. I use the term 'goal' here with respect to parties in discourse, whereas my use of the term earlier has been with respect to analytical goals.
I don't believe there should be any confusion. This text and some of my comments on it derive from a part of the presentation referred to in note 1 which was jointly produced by Michael Makosch, Susan Spencer and myself. I am grateful to all the colleagues referred to in note 1 for providing the stimuli which led to the writing of this paper. I am grateful to my wife Vonny for showing me how to be more coherent; remaining incoherence is my own responsibility. TWO Discourse representation in media discourse The purpose of this paper is to identify tendencies in the representation of spoken and written discourse in newspapers, and to suggest how these tendencies accord with ideologies which are implicit in practices of news production.
I use 'discourse representation' rather than the more familiar 'speech reporting' because a writing, as well as speech, may be represented, and b rather than a transparent 'report' of what was said or written, there is always a decision to interpret and represent it in one way rather than another. I shall refer to articles which appeared in five British national newspapers on Friday 24 May , all of which are about a report of the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee on hard drug abuse which will be referred to below as 'the Report' HMSO Three of the articles are reproduced, in the Appendix.!
I have selected articles which are about a publicly available written report in order to be in a position - which readers of newspapers usually are not - to compare their representation of discourse with an 'original'. This paper is intended as a contribution to 'critical linguistics' Fowler et aI. Thirdly, Volosinov notes that the way in which secondary discourse is interpreted may be controlled by the way it is contextualized in primary discourse.
My framework draws upon these aspects of Volosinov's account. It incorporates five parameters in terms of which texts or types of discourse can be compared with respect to discourse representation: mode, boundary maintenance, stylisticity, situationality, and setting. I shall discuss these in tum with reference to the five articles. One also needs a category for cases of 'slipping' between modes, such as Mrs Thatcher warned Cabinet colleagues that she would 'not stand for any backsliding'. A further mode, coded as UNSIG nalled , is necessary for cases where what is clearly secondary discourse appears in primary discourse without being explicitly marked as represented discourse - Mrs Thatcher will not stand for any backsliding as a newspaper headline, for instance.
Table 1 shows the incidence of modes of discourse representation in the five articles. There is a grand total of instances. This includes each example of slipping being coded twice, for the mode it begins in, and for the mode - always DD S - it 'slips' into. DD if one includes DD S» is used overall as frequently as ID, though there are contrasts in their relative frequency between different newspapers.
DD appears to be used where a the secondary discourse is important, dramatic, pithy, witty, etc. In contrast with Leech and Short , I found it impossible to give a precise semantic value to ID. Leech and Short suggest that the use of ID involves a commitment to give the full ideational meaning of the secondary discourse. DD carries a commitment to give also the exact form of the words used. They distinguish both from 'narrative report of speech act' NRSA , which reports that speech acts have taken place without giving their full ideational meaning e. I found ID to be inherently ambivalent as to what it represents.
It may in some cases represent the full ideational meaning as Leech and Short suggest, but it may also represent less than that. In general, where ID occurs there is ambivalence as to voice. This ambivalence is part of a wider tendency for primary and secondary discourse not to be clearly differentiated. The second sentence of the following is an example: Britain must take immediate draconian measures against hard drugs or be overwhelmed within five years by addiction on the scale which is sweeping America, according to a committee of MPs. The group has just returned from observing the drugs scene in the United States, where it is estimated that 12 million Americans are regular users of the 'devastating' drug cocaine.
Under normal reading conditions that possibility would of course not exist, and such instances are likely to be taken simply as primary discourse. For example, the second sentence of: Stripping of these assets would allow the battfe against drugs to be partly self-financing. Merging can occur in either direction. Suppose for instance that the labour leader Neil Kinnock says 'Margaret Thatcher must resign', and this is represented in two different headlines as Maggie must get out, says Kinnock and Margaret Thatcher must resign.
The former is typical of the case where the secondary discourse is being translated into the voice of the primary discourse, through vocabulary and other changes. I shall call this 'incorporation'. I shall call this 'dissemination'. Boundary maintenance is generally low in the five articles, which means that incorporation and dissemination frequently occur. The most common form of incorporation is change in the interpersonal or stylistic meanings of secondary discourse. Compare for instance this extract from the Report with its representation in The Sun: The Government should consider the use of the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force for radar, airborne or ship surveillance duties.
We recommend. Customs, the police, the security services and possibly the armed forces. The armed forces should be called up to fight off a massive invasion by drug pushers, MPs demanded yesterday. It uses a dramatic imperative, in the headline. The ambivalence of ID referred to earlier is partly a matter of incorporation. These are illustrated respectively by MS, which here reproduces the Report apart from omitting big from big drug dealers, and S, which substitutes along with other changes pedlars for traffickers and the country's way of life for our national well-being: The MPs say that the ruthlessness of the drug dealers must be met by equally ruthless penalties once they are caught, tried and convicted.
M5 Cocaine pedlars are the greatest threat ever faced by Britain in peace time, and could destroy the country's way of life, they said. The evil traffickers are the most serious peace-time threat to Britain, warned a top team of MPs. And unless the Government launches all-out war on them cities could be racked with terror, despair and squalor by The third sentence is a case. But dissemination may occur with other modes. For example, the second sentence above does have a reporting clause and is ID. But there are various features of its organization which lead one to attribute the voice of the secondary discourse at least partially to the primary discourse: the reporting clause occurs finally, so that the status of what preceeds it as secondary discourse is backgrounded; tense is not back-shifted in the represented clause, so that modally its 'source of authority' appears to be the representer, in the primary discourse; the definite subject noun phrase the evil traffickers 'rememberships' the drug barons from the preceding paragraph, and again the authority source for this and the evaluation it includes appears to be the representer.
Although incorporation and dissemination appear on the face of it to be opposite tendencies, there are instances of represented discourse which simultaneously involve both - the second and third sentences of the last example, for instance. Sentence 2 represents the following sentence from the Report: We see this Le. Britain and Europe inheriting the American drug problem as the most serious peacetime threat to our well-being.
I suggest a reason for its frequency below. Stylisticity and situationality These two parameters are closely connected, so I take them together. Stylisticity is very low - there are just five cases in total where interpersonal aspects of meaning are represented. Setting Setting is concerned with the extent to which and ways in which readerllistener interpretation of secondary discourse is controlled by placing it in a particular textual context or 'cotext'. The incidence of setting was high, occurring in 3 7 per cent of instances. Here is an example of DD which uses a range of setting devices: In one of the hardest-hitting Commons reports for years, the committee - chaired by Tory lawyer MP Sir Edward Gardner - warned gravely: Western society is faced.
S One device used here is predisposing interpretation by representing the illocutionary force of the secondary discourse warned. What is most striking, though, is the contribution to establishing weightiness of the representation of the context of situation - the extensive membershipping of Gardner as Tory, lawyer, MP, and knight. This is a function of headlines, and formulations in headlines are often repeated in the initial sentence of a news article. An example is the opening of the S article cited earlier, where both the headline and the initial sentence formulate the third and fourth sentences. It would be rash to draw general conclusions from five articles, but it is my impression that these tendencies have wider validity for media discourse.
They can I think be reduced to two main tendencies. Both a and b are indicative of a low level of demarcation between primary and secondary discourse. I think that we can best understand tendency 1 as a part of this trend. Newsgivers have come to adopt the position of mediators, figures who cultivate 'characteristics which are taken to be typical of the "target" audience' and a relationship of solidarity with it, and can mediate newsworthy events to the audience in the latter's 'common sense' terms Hartley This shift in the role of newsgiver reflects economic pressures to make news a more 'saleable commodity' in order to win bigger audiences, and more advertising revenue in some cases.
It is easy to see how incorporation fits into this picture: the process of 'translation' is from the 'voice' of the secondary discourse to the 'voice' of the primary discourse, where the latter is presented as the voice of mediator and audience. But what about the other elements of tendency 17 Goffman has suggested that what we normally think of as simply the role of 'speaker' or 'writer' in fact conflates three roles: animator the person who is actually making the sounds, or the marks - on paper; author - the one who put the words together; and principal, the one whose position is represented by the words. Newsgivers are at least animators.
Sometimes they are also authors; but sometimes they act as if they were authors, or indeed principals, when they are not. We can relate this latter tendency to the mediator role: if one is a mediator, one cannot come across as a mere animator or mouthpiece, there is pressure to put one's own position on the line. The mediator can affect a degree of commitment by simulating authorship, which is often innocent enough.
But the status of principal is more complicated. The mediator cannot be seen as speaking or writing simply on her or his own behalf, and yet needs to appear committed. Since actual principals will often be other than the mediator or audience - others in media organizations, or 'sources' in public life - a degree of mystification of principalship is common. There is an added twist when we consider which sectors of the society actually come to have their positions represented in the news media. According to Halloran et al. As a consequence, the set of potential principals for the utterances of the news media is very much a socially contracted set.
In so far as principalship is mystified, the news media can be regarded as covertly transmitting the voices of social power-holders. And the final element of tendency 1, setting, gives the possibility of control of the reception of pieces of represented discourse through the adjustment of their primary discourse context. Although the chain is a complex one, it is thus possible to trace links between structural properties of the system of social relationships, and the favouring of particular forms of discourse representation. The case of incorporation-plus-dissemination, which I commented upon in the last section as an apparent paradox and yet very common in the sample, now appears to be archetypical for tendency 1: secondary discourse is both translated into the familiar voice of primary discourse, and portrayed as if it originated in primary discourse.
The 'mediator' role for newsgivers is better developed in some media outlets than others, and one would expect tendency 1 to be most in evidence in these outlets. The five articles I have referred to offer some modest evidence of this. Within the press, it is the 'popular' newspapers such as S and M which have most developed the mediator role, and the S and M articles are clearly ahead of the others in respect of one element of tendency 1, boundary maintenance.
This is most evident in the case of incorporation-plus-dissemination, which occurs in 6 out of the 8 representations of the Report in S, 9 out of 16 in M, 9 out of 25 in T, 2 out of 13 in MS, and 2 out of 19 in G. But there are certainly gradations in this respect; oral narrative, for instance, would appear to be significantly more oriented towards representing non-ideational, interpersonal aspects of meaning than media discourse.
Also, the fact that the articles I have referred to are representing a written document may lead to a greater orientation to ideational meaning, though there seems to be no more of an orientation to interpersonal meaning and situational context in those parts of the articles which represent the press conference rather than the Report. Correspondingly the focus is upon what is said by the mainly public figures and organizations whose discourse is reported - to the extent that there is rarely any concession to the commonplace in social studies of language that what is said, the ideational meaning, may depend upon how it is said and under what social circumstances. We can regard this as an ideological representation of language which underlies tendency 2, and which seems to be characteristic of what is generally regarded as within the 'public' domain as opposed to the 'private' domain.
There is also a system of values here; the 'public' has greater prestige than the 'private', and implicitly those aspects of discourse which merit public representation - the ideational aspects - are ascribed greater import than those which are of merely private significance. Another related explanation for tendency 2 is the myth that the media are a 'mirror' to reality.
To sustain this myth, one needs another: that reality is transparent and can be 'read' without mediation or interpretation. It is just plausible though mistaken to maintain that the ideational meaning of secondary discourses is transparently 'there' in the words used, but it would be quite impossible to sustain the same claim about interpersonal meanings, which so obviously depend upon discourse situation and wider social context, and which so obviously need to be interpreted and represented.
It is I believe important both for linguists to be sensitive to how discourse is shaped by and helps to shape social structures and relations, and for sociologists to be sensitive to how social structures and relations are instantiated in the fine detail of daily social practices, including discourse. In the case of the S article, I have numbered those sentences which contain discourse representation, and shown my analysis for them in Table 2 on the next page. The slash I in relates to incorporation, and means 'not applicable' - these instances report the press conference rather than the Report.
Cocaine pedlars are the greatest threat ever faced by Britain in peacetime - and could 4 destroy the country's way of life. On shore there should be intensified law Photo of Miss Fookes 6 enforcement by Customs. In one of the hardest-hitting Commons S reports for years. The traffickers amass princely incomes addicts from the exploitation of human weakness. She their homes. Tough legal action to counter what MPs The conunittee also attacks the softer attitude describe as the biggest threat to the stability of towards marijuana, and says it must be peace time Britain - the burgeoning heroin and bracketed with the campaign against heroin and cocaine trade - was demanded yesterday by the cocaine.
One committee member, Mr Robin all-party Conunons home affairs committee. Mrs Thatcher said another. Secretary, Mr Leon Brittan. Their report found that an The home affairs committee wants to bring in estimated 12 million Americans regularly use the Navy and the RAF to survey and possibly cocaine. The report says that life sentences - "We fear that unless immediate and effective equivalent to the penalty for premeditated action is taken Britain and Europe stand to murder - should be meted out for all people inherit the American drug problem in less than convicted of drug-trafficking. Sir Edward Gardner.To preserve tlze content of the message tlze Summary Of The Poem Hurt Hawks By Robinson Jeffers must be changed. O Manhattan, my Similarities Between Conforming And Nonconformity, my peerless! Wpihpr - cheap Dominican Republic Gender Roles 50mg Vbwmyx bqnvzd. How Why Do We Need To Belong Essay by America Is Too Completive Essay the earth. O throbbing heart! Behold me—incarnate me, as I have incarnated you!