Monday, 15 June 2015

Mini Twitter Investigation


For this investigation we expect to see a frequent use of declaratives used to represent power and used data from Twitter as evidence to support our hypothesis. We used Fairtrade Foundation’s Twitter feed and chose every other tweet to study so the investigation was fair and reliable. Fairtrade is in a position of power therefore it was ideal to use their tweets; Ed Miliband’s Twitter feed was also one ideal for this use due to his position of power. We used the same method of choosing every other tweet as a form of systematic sampling. To obtain more of a diverse, random sample, we used the first page of a personal Timeline showing tweets from people followed. We also used the method of selecting every other tweet for our analysis.

After collecting the data from the Fairtrade feed, we studied four tweets. Two contained declarative statements, for example, “This special blend is darkly roasted to produce a rich and caramelly sweetness.” By contrast, the other two only contained interrogative statements, for instance, “Who pays the price for our clothing?” This feed both contradicted and agreed with our hypothesis equally.  Ed Miliband’s feed differed from Fairtrade as it contained no interrogatives or imperatives. Out of four tweets we looked at through the selection process, such as, “I am grateful to the people who worked on our campaign,” all of them were declarative statements which support our hypothesis.

After selecting three tweets from the Twitter feed, the majority were also declarative such as, “The suffragettes didn’t fight to be left out of an entire GCSE history paper.” However, one tweet had an imperative mood, “Don’t ever stop being you.” It was interesting and valuable to use a random Twitter feed because of the contrast between average individuals and celebrities who have a higher position of power. Two individuals out of the three were celebrities, one used a declarative and the other imperative which again, both disagrees and agrees with my hypothesis.

Declaratives work alongside hashtags and tagging other users which are usually large and powerful organisations. For example, Fairtrade tag their other Fairtrade accounts such as @FairtradeUKNews to make them appear more powerful and a larger organisation. They also tag users not linked to their companies, such as @StarbucksUK to make their power base and connections seem more wide scale.  They also use declarative hashtags to promote their tweets, such as #Fairtrade. By using hashtags and tagging other users, for example, @MichaelJackson in our random tweets feed, they are allowing more people to view their tweets. They display their power by making their tweets viral and shared.

In all of the Twitter feeds we have used as evidence, all use declaratives in the form of sentences and using the tagging feature on Twitter. However, some power was expressed in the form of interrogative rhetorical questions or imperatives. But overall the dominant sentence type appears to be declaratives. To better my investigation for the future, I will include a larger range of examples of Twitter feeds to support or disprove my hypothesis.

Geordie Shore: Ricci and Vicky talk weddings – transcript & analysis


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_4PvRZi3XY

A: are we gonna see a Geordie wedding this season (.) or coming up

B: no (0.5) we’re not um I think (.) well (.) um in ooh

C: you lost for words babe

B: [laughs]

C: is she feeling alright (.) are you feeling alright

B: I’m not lost for words I’m just struggling working out / things

C:                                                                                                / oh yeah okay

B: [puts hand over his face] shut up

C: I can’t believe this like

B: we don’t have a / wedding

C:                               / got this on camera

B: no [continues to put her hand on his face]

C: this never happens

B: shut up (0.5) we have sort of like um an engagement party (1) so it’s kinda like in the right direction for a wedding but it’s not a wedding (.) so wu we’re moving [makes hand gesture indicating direction] (.) towards (.) a wedding but we’re still very far away from a wedding (.) stop putting so much pressure on us [buries head in scarf]

A: I can’t think of anything worse than planning a wedding it must be a lot of / hassle

B:                                                                                                                                      / I can’t literally cause I’m so dreading the point where I have to do something like that (.) in real life we just had our engagement party like in one for all our friends and all our family /

C: family that obviously couldn’t get there’ll come on the [mumbles] show / at that point

B:                                                                                                                                   / and it was the most stressful time tryna plan it and /

C: so much planning and so much /organising

B:                                                         / oh yeah Ricci I bet your knackered after all that planning are ya

C: [laughs]

B: yeah all those decisions ya had to make (.) all those emails ya had to send (.) meetings with the cake maker yeah (1) he did nothing until about a week before where he suddenly got interested and started demanding all sorts of ridiculous things (.) which were just not possible like monkeys carrying trays of drinks

A: [laughs]

B: so Ricci is not gonna be part of planning the wedding as he didn’t plan the engagement party and I’m not planning the wedding until I get a team of people to help us
 
 
 

I chose this data because male and female conversational styles interest me and in this clip there were clear contrasts between the two speakers. I found that this video corresponded with Robin Lakoff’s Deficit Theory. For example, speaker B, the female, used a plentiful amount of intensifiers and frequently spoke in italics, for example, “shut up,” and “team of people,” used to exaggerate. Speaker B also uses hedges, such as, “sort of like” and “kind of like.” She often repeats how she organised their engagement party single handily and the same will not happen with her wedding which can be viewed as an indirect request for her fiancĂ© to have more involvement in wedding planning and organisation.
However there are some differences between this clip and the theory as it does seem to be the female speaking more frequently which links more to verbosity. The female character cannot be considered polite, however does avoid using derogatory language. Her speaking is more declarative so she tends not to use empty adjectives as this text is limited in description.
 If I attempted to investigate this further, I could name this investigation ‘Is Robin Lakoff’s 1975 theory about female speech still relevant in modern day conversations?’ Additional data I could add to this investigation could be a recording of a conversation in 1975 between a male and female to test if the theory was relevant then. Most importantly, to compare it to modern day language, I could collect primary data recording a live conversation between a male and female and transcribing it myself. I could repeat the process and obtain a large quantity of data that I could choose examples from that either contradict or agree with my hypothesis.