Class Work for 20/10/2015

(1) What do you notice about the use of proper nouns and/or pronouns in referring to people and events concerned 

It is made clear, throughout the transcript , that the conversation is decidedly formal in nature. This is highlighted by the frequent use of the pronoun 'Mr.' when referring to the two men involved. The constant use of 'Mr Neil' and 'Mr Peterson' inspires a sense of unease in the defendant, Mr Neil, by way of strict formality. In addition to this, the personal pronouns 'I' and 'You' are used often, making the person to which they refer feel singled out, and pressured.

(2) Which parts of the dialogue seem prepared, or part of the courtroom conventions, and which seem spontaneous?

One of the 'planned' sections of the transcript was he barrister's opening speech, which served the courtroom purpose of outlining the facts of the case. It can be assumed that this was done in order to clarify the details of the case to all present (jury, judge etc)

An example of a spontaneous section of the transcript is where the barrister makes a claim about Mr Neil, regarding his previous involvement with the police. This ad hominem was said on the spur of the moment, to surprise, or startle, Mr Neil. It is clear that this has been achieved. The fact that Mr Neil reacted by laughing, a reaction not usually seen in court, shows the spontaneous nature of the statement. 

(3) Who seem to have the most power in the dialogue and why?

It is made very clear throughout that, befitting his role, the barrister commands a considerable amount of power over Mr Neil.

One quote that shows this is: "is that right? what happened to this gate?". This set of two questions shows the comfort that the barrister has in questioning Mr Neil. His indication of disbelief in the first question "is that right?" shows that he is comfortable in his superiority over Mr Neil and the fact that he suspects him of being wrong.  

Class Work for 06/10/15

Commentary on Controversial Issues Blog Work

The 'controversial issue' I addressed the ongoing debate as to whether the United Kingdom should remain a member state of the European Union.

The voice of my first character, Joe, is for the most part, a slight parody of my own views on the matter. In order to create the 'blog' of this character, I simply wrote as I normally would, while incorporating some slightly atypical features into the writing.

To provide some more validity to the character's blog post, I included some statistics sourced from the articles cited in the bibliography on the original post. An example statistic was the statement: "we'll lose an estimated £400bn we make in a year". This serves to make the blog post more convincing, as people tend to be trusting of statistics.
Another technique used in this character's blog was a rhetorical question to close the blog post. The question: "Is this the kind of future you want for our country?" provides the reader with something to think about as the post ends. It makes the post more memorable and consolidates the point made over the course of the post.
The intended audience of this character's blog is like-minded individuals of a similar age and background. This is enforced through the relatively personal language used in the blog post, suggesting that he is probably followed by many people that he knows in real life.
It is probable that anyone who comes across this post will have done so either by following the blog, or by coming across it via an internet search on the topic. The character addresses his existing audience in the introduction of the post, using a tone which would suggest that he is familiar and comfortable with his user-base. An example of this is how he doesn't open with any particular welcome, instead choosing to dive directly into the issue at hand: "Recently, a lot of media attention is being paid..."
The purpose of the character's post is, as with most blog posts, to inspire discussion on the topic. This is clear based on the inclusion of opinion. For example: "While it isn't essential to me, our military standing would also be effected". This opens the content of the post to general discussion and debate in the comments among it's readers.

The voice of my second character, Nathan, is drawn from exaggerated stereotypes of the right-wing upper class. Whilst being influenced clearly by prejudices towards the 'left' and using some inflammatory comments, I attempted to retain a sense of upper-class sensibility.

In order to better shape this character's blog post, I included a lot more emotive language. This will interest or entice the readers further, as well as inspiring them to express their own opinions and feelings on the matter. An example of this is: "Besides, it's not like there aren't countries who haven't prospered and thrived outside of the EU's 'protective' embrace. Just look at Norway & Switzerland. They're doing pretty well, right?"
Another technique used is the final statement: "So, readers, I trust I have convinced you to sway the vote and save us from the dictators of the EU, and to make Britain truly great again!"
This statement was used to appeal and resonate with the readers of this blog. who are more likely than not to agree with the views being expressed by the character. This statement was designed to further discussion among readers, and to inspire further discussion on the matter.

As with the other character's post, 

Class Work for 2/10/15

Think of a controversial issue and imagine two characters who would have opposing views. They should write as if each of those characters were blogging their arguments, trying to create a really different, realistic voice (idiolect) for each one. One could be responding to the other's ideas or not. Bibliography needed for research on the topic.

 
Controversial Issue:
"Should the United Kingdom leave the European Union?"

Character 1:
James, 23, Against Leaving Europe, Left-Wing, Working Class

Character 2:
 Nathan, 55, For Leaving Europe, Right-Wing, Upper Class

James' Blog on Leaving Europe

Recently, a lot of media attention is being paid to the referendum on whether or not the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union. This referendum, proposed by the Conservative party upon re-election this year, is set to take place 'some time before the end of 2017'.

While there has been much debate on the subject, I for one, am completely certain that the best thing for our country, both now and in the future, would be to remain a member state of the EU. In this blog post, I'll do my best to outline why I believe this.

Even to me, someone who has never lived in a Britain outside of the EU, the advantages of remaining are clear. First and foremost, one of the biggest aspects of our lives would be affected. Trade. Should we leave the EU, we risk jeopardising valuable trade links that have been established over decades. Surely it'd be equivalent to collectively shooting ourselves in the foot if we were to sever these ties in an instant. Even if we were to leave, and become dependent on the few exports that we have, they would still be subject to EU  export tariff and production standards, meaning that we'd just as well have stayed a member state. For some figures, it is said that if the UK leaves, we'll lose the estimated £400bn we make in a year, which amount to 52% of our total trade in goods and services.

Another aspect that deters me from the idea of leaving the EU is the way in which it would affect the rules and laws under which our country could operate. In losing the support of the European Court of Justice, we lose the current human rights laws we currently use. This gives the Conservative party the power to enforce new human rights legislation as they see fit, an idea that doesn't sit too well with me.

Employment will also be heavily affected if we leave the EU. As it is, as European citizens, we are entitled to free movement across the whole of Europe, as well as increased employability. Not only will it be harder for our citizens to find work outside of the UK, but it will encourage international companies to move production to cheaper EU nations. For example, our large foreign-owned car industry would likely soon be transferred to other countries. Aerospace would also be hit hard, with companies like Airbus likely to shift their production facilities to countries like France & Germany.

While it isn't as essential to me, our military standing would also be affected. It is said that should we leave the EU, America is likely to consider us a less valuable ally. This could also alter the impact of our say in United Nations decisions considering factors such as: the environment, security, and trade.

All that said, I ask my readers this:
Is this the kind of future you want for our country?

Nathan's Blog on Leaving Europe

As anyone who's watched the news since May knows, we're long overdue a referendum on our position as a member state of the European Union, and David Cameron made the good move of ensuring that we'll get one before 2017 in his elective manifesto. As I'm sure you'll all know, this has got those bloody lefties up in arms, spouting irrelevant facts like some kind of faulty fountain. You'll no doubt come across dozens of articles or blog posts containing them whining about how dependent they are on the EU. A load of rubbish, if you ask me.
As I see it, it's rather black and white. There's no question, we should definitely make it our highest priority to get out of the European Union as soon as we can. 2017 can't come soon enough!

You'll see the left incessantly moaning about how helpless and weak we'd be outside of the EU's influence. They seem to forget what country they're talking about. A nation that once boasted the finest navy the world has ever seen, and one of the largest and most illustrious empires throughout history, the influence of which can be seen today.
Besides, it's not like there aren't countries who haven't prospered and thrived outside of the EU's 'protective' embrace. Just look at Norway & Switzerland. They're doing pretty well, right?
It's not as if we couldn't leave under our own terms, taking the rules that will be of advantage to us and ditching the ones that hold us back.

Our trade won't be hampered either. Those lefties will have you believe that we'll be completely unable to trade if we back out. What they seem to conveniently forget is the current state of the European economy. What a mess. Staying there will only harm us in the long run. Sure, the Union was a great idea back when it was first conceived. but nowadays, what's the point. Soon enough the likes of Spain and Greece will drag us down, just you wait. Economists have even said that we could be like 'Singapore on Steriods'. I'm confident that this is the definite right move for our economy.

They also like to spin tales of the employment crisis that will 'inevitably' follow a split from the EU. For those fools, a quick statistic: more than 90% of the UK economy is NOT involved with EU trade. Pulling out of the EU and staying in the EEA could create as many as 1 million jobs for our people!

A split from the EU would do wonders in the way of securing our borders, too! We'd finally be able to control the flood of migrants pouring in from EU countries, and have a say in who gets in, an issue of great importance to us all.

So, readers, I trust I have convinced you to sway the vote and save us from the dictators of the EU, and to make Britain truly great again!



Bibliography: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/05/brussels-eurosceptics-british-voter-out-lobby
http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21567914-how-britain-could-fall-out-european-union-and-what-it-would-mean-making-break
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20448450
http://www.theweek.co.uk/eu-referendum
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/05/brussels-eurosceptics-british-voter-out-lobby
(All last visited 05/10/2015)