Language & Occupation Research Task - Veterinary Surgeon

The special lexis used by vets covers many individual topics.
The topics we are covering include:

• Diseases, Illnesses and Symptoms
• Animal Anatomy
• Equipment 
• Names of Procedures

Diseases, Illnesses and Symptoms

In Dogs:
Parvo (Parvovirus Infection)
an infectious disease, most commonly found in dogs. It attacks the immune system of the dog, eventually killing the dog.
Lyme Disease
an infectious disease, caused by bacteria transmitted through ticks, it can spread to humans.
Demodicosis
also known as 'demodectic mange', this disease is caused by a build-up of mites on the dogs fur

In Cats:
Feline Infectious Peritonitis
an incurable, fatal disease in cats that takes over white blood cells causing a deadly inflammatory reaction.
Feline Immunodeficiency Virus
a lentivirus that affects up to 2.5% - 4.4% of cats worldwide, it is not typically fatal.

Veterinary Procedures

Sialoadenectomy
The surgical excision of the salivary gland

Hypophysectomy
The removal of the pituitary gland, usually used to treat tumors.

Laminectomy
The surgical removal of the lamina; the part of the vertebra that covers your spinal canal. This surgery can be used to relieve pressure on the spinal column and connected nerves.

How does your occupational group communicate with members of the public who are customers or clients?

When talking to their clients, veterinary surgeons tend not to dumb down their specialist language, as it is important that the clients understand what exactly is happening to their pets. Despite this, they may also offer the client a more 'basic' explanation. In some cases, especially when informing an owner that their pet may have to be put down, they might talk to the client slowly and with empathy.

Describe the occupational register of this group, with examples.
In the workplace, vets would be likely to talk professionally, especially when in medical or surgery situations, where they would use the correct terms for the situation. However, perhaps when consoling a customer, they may use more personal, passionate terms.

Sources

http://www.petmd.com/veterinaryterms

Jennifer Lawrence - Why Do I Make Less Than My Male Co-Stars?

What are the important contextual features of this text?

The context of this piece is as follows:
Following a hacking scandal, Sony had a lot of sensitive information leaked. This included the respective wages earned by each of the actors that starred in a certain film. It was subsequently revealed that the female stars, notably Jennifer Lawrence (of 'Hunger Games' fame) were being paid substantially less than their male counterparts. This led to Lawrence herself posting an update to Facebook detailing her thoughts on the matter. The entire scenario was accentuated by the multitude of recent claims of a 'gender pay gap', making it one of the most hotly debated discussions concerning gender equality in recent years.

Comment on the 'male' and 'female' language features in this text. What is their effect on the reader?

In direct opposition to Robin Lakoff's 'Deficit' model of gendered speech, Lawrence uses aspects of what would be considered both 'male' and 'female' speech.
In terms of 'female' language features, Lawrence uses the brunt of them at the start of her article. For example, she can be seen to use Emotional language such as 'excited'. She also uses several 'empty adjectives' like 'adorable', albeit slightly ironically or sardonically. Due to the very slight presence of this 'female' speech, it has very little effect on the reader, since they don't really get the chance to process or interpret it before it is gone. However, after that she abandons all of the so-say 'female sensibilities' and descends into what would be heavily considered 'male' linguistic territory.
 Examples of this can be found in her noticeably 'direct' manner of speech. This is shown through the use of imperatives/directives. She also features swearing heavily in her text, a feature Lakoff would interpret as being indicative of 'male' speech tendencies. She also speaks with what could be interpreted as a more 'dominant' tone, a staple of Lakoff's theory of Deficit. The inclusion of these 'male' linguistic features gives the piece a very commanding and serious tone, and makes it really stand out, when you remember from who the text is coming.

Do you agree with her conclusion? Justify your answer making reference to the language and gender theories we have looked at in class.

In terms of language, she makes a good point. It is indeed the case that when men are forceful or even aggressive in their efforts to achieve something, it often works, and they are often praised for it, whereas these attributes are seen as detrimental when used by a woman.

While I in no way subscribe to the belief that women should be paid less for the same work, I do not agree with the conclusion to which Jennifer Lawrence has arrived. While, on the face of it, it may indeed seem that Jennifer Lawrence (recently named Hollywood's highest paid actress) was paid about half of what her male co-stars earned, that conclusion has been reached due to distorted figure taken out of context.
For her role in American Hustle Lawrence received $1.25 million, plus $250,000 in deferred compensation, as well as seven points in profit participation.
If you take the information at face value, it could seem outrageous that her male co-stars Christian Bale, and Bradley Cooper received $2.5 million each, with nine points.
However this is not the truth. While Jennifer Lawrence worked for 19 days for her $1.25 million, Bale & Cooper worked at least 45 days each for their double in pay.
When broken down, Lawrence actually earned $65 thousand per day of work, whereas Bale & Cooper both earned $55 thousand per day, meaning that in fact, Lawrence earned more for her time worked.
As has been demonstrated, it is easy enough to distort these figures to make it appear as if Lawrence was being criminally underpaid for her role, in comparison to her co-stars, that simply isn't the case.
In a revelation of, perhaps, cruel irony, for her starring role in the film Passengers, Lawrence was paid an estimated $5 million to £7 million more than her male co-star, Chris Pratt.
With such high figures being thrown around, the entire situation does beg the question:
'Aren't all stars, male, female, or whatever, absurdly overpaid?'

Article - How Are Dialects Changing?

Just What is 'Bidialectalism', and Just How Does it Affect You?

A dialect is a variety of language spoken by a particular group of the language's speakers. This includes the usage of slang and the accent with which the speaker talks. Dialects are often regional, however, there are also dialects specific to certain social circles called a 'sociolect'. Another type of dialect is the form of a language spoken by a particular ethnic group in the language, this is an 'ethnolect'.

Everybody, despite what they might believe, is part of a dialect. Be it regional, social or ethnic, everybody can relate to being part of a dialect. As such, it is easy for everybody to relate to the idea of a set dialect that can be easily noticed or recognised. Some people may find solace in being part of such a distinguished group of people, so it may alarm them that dialects are changing over time. Don't believe me? I don't blame you, it seems almost hard to believe that something as well established as say, the cockney dialect, could be changing over time. Linguists (those who study language) have noticed this, and there are many examples and theories to explain this change.

One explanation of such a change is the existence of 'bidialectalism', the ability to speak with two accents or dialects. Researchers have found this transient dialectal tendency to be most prominent among the middle classes, who often mingle with wide ranges of people and backgrounds, and are effectively influenced by those they live around. For example, growing up in London, and then moving to Newcastle has been known to cause people to fuse the two accents, creating a hybrid, or speak the two entirely separately.

Researchers at the University of Newcastle have come to the conclusion that bidialectalism is almost always performed by the subconscious part of the brain. They say that this is due to the subconscious desire to adapt to your surroundings whenever you are put into a new environment. As such, if you pay attention, you may find yourself changing your accent slightly when talking to people from other regions, with other dialects.

This even occurs to me! When visiting my mother's family in the northern-midlands, I find myself adding slight aspects of their regional accent into my own. This has resulted, for me, in a rather neutral dialect, which is neither here-nor-there. However, researchers say that bidialectalism is a phenomenon mostly reserved for the middle-class. They say this not due to some biological difference between the classes, but do back it up rather convincingly. They say that the upper classes are less likely to experience this due to the fact that they, for the most part, do not possess particularly noticeable regional accents, instead choosing to speak a variety of received pronunciation. They say that people in the working class generally possess stronger regional accents, and as they are less likely to move around the country, they are usually surrounded by people with the same dialect as them, causing no need to change.

The research these linguists are conducting has even reached the point where they feel able to 'forecast' the future potential changes in certain dialects. For example, Dr. Hall of the University of Newcastle believes that within the next 30 years, the North-East accent very well may have become a part of a general 'Northern' accent. This is what is known as 'Dialectal Dilution'.

That said, I see nothing to worry about when it comes to bidialectalism. Everything evolves and changes over time, mostly for the better, so why should language and dialect be any different? I for one, look forward to seeing how both my own, and general dialects change in the years to come.

TED Talk Notes

Talk #1: Murray Gell-Mann - The Ancestor of Language
https://www.ted.com/talks/murray_gell_mann_on_the_ancestor_of_language#t-16309

Topic: Distant relationships between human languages

Notes:
The theory of common ancestry,  when it comes to language, is not a widely believed theory among linguists
The talker believes that language goes beyond this theoretical 'common ancestor', before things such as cave paintings, which he believes could not have been created without modern language.

Talk #2: Erin McKean: Go Ahead, Make Up New Words
https://www.ted.com/talks/erin_mckean_go_ahead_make_up_new_words#t-397119

Topic: Creation of new words, Specifically in the English Language.

Notes:
The speaker talks about the fact that people are discouraged from creating new words, and how this is contradictory to how we are usually taught to be (meaning, creative, inventive etc). She implores the listener to embrace new words, and even take a hand in creating some.

She then goes on to talk about the different ways new words can be created:
The first, is 'borrowing' words from other languages and adopting them directly into our own. She cites the word 'ninja' from Japanese as an example for this.
Another method by which new words can be formed is by 'Compounding' Which is combining to pre-existing words to form a new word. She uses the words "Heartbroken", "Bookworm" and "Sandcastle" to demonstrate a compound.
The next way detailed in the video is called 'Functional Shift'. This is where the meaning of a word is adapted to fit a different situation/context. An example used for this is: the word 'commercial' while originally being an adjective, has become a noun in modern American English.
The final way she shares on how to create new words is 'Blending'. This, similarly to compounding, is a way of combining two words, however blending does so more vigorously. Examples of blending include: "Brunch" and "Motel"

Talk #3: Daniel H. Cohen: For Argument's Sake
https://www.ted.com/talks/daniel_h_cohen_for_argument_s_sake#t-28019

Topic: Why Do We Argue?

Notes:
The speaker explores the concept of academic argument, why we argue, and what effect losing an argument has.
He states three 'models' of academic argument
Argument as War
Argument as Proof
Argument as Performance
He says that, of the three, the dominant is 'Argument as War'. He says that it shapes how we talk and think about arguments, as well as how we conduct our own arguments.
The talker points out that when we talk about arguments, we often use militaristic terms. He states that: "We want 'strong' arguments, 'killer' arguments."

The speaker suggests that this 'adversarial' way of addressing argument is 'deforming' the way we think about argument. He says it makes us value tactics over substance, that it magnifies the 'us vs them' aspect, and that the only foreseeable outcomes are 'glorious victory', or 'abject defeat'.
He says that this way of thinking removes the concepts of Deliberation, Negotiation, Compromise and Collaboration from arguing.
He finishes by saying that arguments run through this way of thinking never really 'get anywhere'. More often than not, they end in stalemate, or backtracking or proverbial 'dead-ends'.

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)