DOMINANCE THEORY.

The classical Dominance theory! (Language and Gender) This particular theory focuses on ways how men and women hold the most dominance, and it has come to a conclusion that in particular, men hold the most dominance within a mixed conversation with women. For instance, according to linguists Zimmerman and West, men were more likely to interrupt than women by carrying out a study that in eleven conversations, men used at least forty six interruptions, whereas in contrast women only using at least two. This then resulted in that men were more dominant within conversations, or perhaps this could be a sign that patriarchy still continues today?                                                                                                     According to Lakoff, she claims this particular ‘Dominance approach’ women have ‘less as the final word’ meaning that men were more likely to close the conversation, by having the last final say.

Interested? Of course you are… Lakoff also claimed that women tend to speak less in conversation, with fewer expletives, whereas men they were more likely to include straight forward imperatives. According to Lakoff, she claims that women’s language included more hedges and fillers such as ‘sort of’ or ‘kind of’ rather than being straight forwards. Apologetic requests, mitigated imperative (polite forms attached to it), tag questions ‘It’s so cold there, isn’t it?’ more intensifiers such as ‘So’ or very’ blah blah blah, you get the point.                                                                                                                                                                       Ever spoken to a women & she didn’t understand the pun? Ah yes you have, we’ve all been there. Theoretically speaking, studies show that women tend to lack a sense of humour within conversations. Perhaps they may do this to seem feminine? Or perhaps they do this on purpose to not show their distinctive way of thinking as it can reveal their ‘laddish’ side of understanding jokes.

http://www.teachit.co.uk/armoore/lang/gender.htm#lakoff

http://atp.uclan.ac.uk/buddypress/diffusion/?p=736

AS & A2 revision guide. Pg. 48 – Language and Gender.

This particular extract shows the dominance between men and women, perhaps this extract can really tell if Lakoff as well as Zimmermans and West’s research was necessarily true.

27th August, 1995

David: Right. Sue, you were a feminist in a past life, in your earlier years. Can you tell us a little about that?

Sue: Yes. I think it is better to begin by telling you why I became a feminist in the first place. It was mainly due to boredom. I was bored with the normal female roles I had lived or had encountered, and so I joined a women's group at about the age of twenty-three. I remember thinking at the time that being a feminist had to be the highest a woman could go. It said to the world that you were: political, direct, difficult, boundary-pushing, passionate, strong, purposeful and courageous. But after two years of doing the rounds of rallies, forums, journal writing, petitions, lobbying governments and so on, I left. By then I knew that none of my ideas about feminism were correct.

David: You were part of a group, weren't you?

Sue: Yes, W.I.L.P.F.

David: And what's that?

Sue: Women's International League for Peace and Freedom.

David: Right.

Sue: It was mainly a peace group but it had feminist ideals behind it, backing it - backing up their dogma.

David: And while you were there you fostered the normal feminist lines, I suppose?

Sue: Oh, yes.

David: You believed that feminists were making sense?

Sue: Definitely. I believed that women were better, that they were good, that they were the ones who had to take care of things. I really believed that they were responsible human beings. I believed that they had to take more of a place in history, of which they hadn't been given an opportunity before. So I went in there very idealistic. The only trouble was it became very obvious to me in a very short period of time that really nobody else there cared. Nobody else was really interested in any of the higher ideals which I had - which were not just about saving the world but about changing the basic principles in the world. Call me naive, which I was, but I really believed these things. I believed that the women involved with the group had the same passion that I had. I left because I realized that that wasn't the case. More importantly, I left because my enthusiasm was getting drained by these women.

Within this particular extract, you immediately perceive and realise that it is taking place predominantly at the hour of judgement radio series. As you can see, Sue was previously a feminist who is being interviewed by a man via radio, therefore this could have negative connotations on David as perhaps he could not be a fan of feminism by associating it with ‘pointless’. This is evident in the language used by David through the use of the rhetorical ‘you believed that feminists were making sense?’ almost gives a sense to the reader that he is making assumptions himself to think that feminists do not make sense, or perhaps he could stereotypically think that it is a pile of rubbish. However, it is highly noticeable that David does not interrupt within this extract in order to sound professional, as well as taking into account that it is an interview, therefore David allows Sue to speak. The use of the interrogative ‘and what’s that?’ almost gives a sense to the reader that David is pretending to be interested, as this is evident as he ends the answer through the use of the exclamation ‘right’ in order to acknowledge a state or order.

The researches Linguists have carried out apply to this particular transcript, although not every single research is evidence within this transcript. For instance, you can perceive that David is the one who may be listening, rather than dominating. In fact, Sue initiates by thinking that she holds authority to speak. ‘’I think it is better to begin by telling you why I became a feminist in the first place’’ illustrates that she realises patriarchy and its certain aspects, therefore she could perhaps realise that women really are EQUAL, so it could then result to her thinking that she can hold the dominance, regardless of her gender.

Grouping paragraph:

The texts that i will be grouping are Text C, E and F. For instance, Text C and E contains a small amount of confusion between the two participants within the conversations. As text C states that 'You're Mr Careful' it illustrates confusion as Mr Bump was not immediately aware of his name due to the Memory loss. the use of 'Thank you' realistically conveys that Mr Bump did not have deeper knowledge about his name. Whereas similarly text E shows a considerable amount of confusion due to the overlapping '..be under..' 'on Sundays too' immediately illustrates that the participants are suffering some sort of confusion. Thus, shows that they both contain no knowledge of where participant A's newspaper is. Furthermore, text F additionally shows certain aspects of confusion, perhaps this could be due to the lateness of the replies as this type of conversation is electronically moderated. 

PEE Analysis
Both of the texts have contrasting audiences in their own type of way. Perhaps text a could have a target audience of people who share the same beliefs and cultures who may take an ethical view about God, or perhaps it could be a group of people who may have an interest in this specific subject matter. Perhaps the primary purpose of this text is to inform the readers to perceive that they are seen as valuable to God. Furthermore, the form of this is a written status, whereas in contrast text B involves spoken text and is directly spoken to the audience. Although they have similarities, one main difference is that readers may have access to each of these texts in completely contrasting places. For instance, you will have to go on the internet or some sort of technological device in order to access Facebook. However, the advert will be seen on the Television which you will have access by watching TV.

Firstly, you can perceive in the two texts that they sort of carry out similar meanings. for instance, Text A expresses the fact that every single individual is 'valuable' to god. By using the adjective 'valuable' it develops a certain effect on the reader into thinking that they are valuable to god. Thus, this makes the reader feel somewhat happy about themselves as they will think that

I assume that the L'Oreal advert uses a rather appealing celebrity i.e. Beyonce or Cheryl Cole as the face to represent and intrigue readers into thinking that the product is reliable and trustworthy if it is being represented by a well-known celebrity who may also use that specific product. Similarly to the Facebook status, if the status producer claims that 'Good or bad comes our way' may perhaps be said by a trustworthy family member. Immediately, the readers will have trust in that producer as it is being accessed through a known source, in this case, Facebook. In this case, if it were to be a family member posting this particular status, the readers will perhaps be more likely to share religion because we often choose to have close to us those who share our values.

Text A: Facebook status:

'Whatever good or bad comes our way, it is all from God. Sometimes, he rewards us. You're very valuable to God.'

Text B: Advert

L'Oreal 'Because you're worth it.'

Two of the texts I have chosen are both written, however they hold a different form. Text A is a Facebook status, and text B is an advertisement. These two texts hold the same primary purpose, as they both try to persuade each individual to make them feel 'worth it' or 'valuable'. 

The most noticeable link between these two extracts are that they both seem to make the reader feel somewhat happy about themselves. Perhaps it could be that both of the extracts are building the consumer in their own type of way as both of the extracts contain 'you're'. As you can see the use of 'you're' constructs a relationship between the reader and the producer by attempting to make out as if the advertisment if directly forming a conversation between the reader and the producer. Additionally, the use of the contraction 'you're' breaks down to 'you are' so in certain ways the producer is trying to imply that the reader is something. For example, in text A the Facebook status is directly telling the reader 'You're very valuable' and similarly, text B immediately states 'you're worth it' so in certain ways, the producer of the texts are attempting to get the same message accross. Perhaps the use of the adjective 'worth' and the other adjective 'valuable' are the same synonyms.

Fairclough's notion of synthetic personaliation is noticeably used in these two texts. As you can see, the producer constructed direct address towards the reader in order for the reader to feel somewhat engaged and hooked to think that they are directly speaking to the individual, not anybody else. In text A, the use of the pronoun 'us' creates a rather intruiguing effect on the reader as it develops an engaging feeling on the reader to make them think that they are being rewarded as a whole, rather than just an individual. In addition to this, Faircloughs other notion of 'building the consumer' is widely used throughout the text B. To illustrate, text B directly tells the reader that they are 'worth it' which automatically triggers into the readers mind that they are worth it and highly valuable to society. Thus, makes the consumer want to go out and purchase the product that is being sold and advertised. 

In conclusion, both of the two texts hold an ambiguous effect and enages the reader in their own type of way. The two texts has their differences but especially has theit own similiarities. For example, the differences are that they hold their own form, however similarly they hold the same meaning and message.