MONOLOGUE: ANDREW CLARK, THE BREAKFAST CLUB

Regret is the underlying theme of this monologue. We can tell this through the way Andrew reflects upon the experience for example ''I tortured the poor kid'', ''to think I was cool''. This shows that he is feeling empathy for Larry Lester and feels truly awful about it and thinks the reason he did it is embarrassing. We can also sense his humiliation through his use of taboo language and repetition. The quote ''and the humiliation, the fucking humiliation'' displays the use of expletives to display his frustration with himself and the repetition emphasises the impact of the humiliation and just how much Larry must have felt at the time.

We can also sense his remorse as he is willing to make sacrifices to undo what he did or escape the situation. He says ''I wish my knee would give in'' so that his father would 'forget all about'' him. This shows that the issue is more deep routed than what you may assume and that he is blaming himself as well as his father.

Andrew's speech features tag questions and repetition. This highlights his insecurity and need to be reassured by others in the group. 'you know', 'right?' and 'you guys know' are all examples of this and are repeated throughout the monologue. These features (according to Lackoff's deficit theory) are typically used by women in speech but since Andrew is young this may be why we see these techniques. They typically symbolise lack of courage or leadership and since he is young and naïve, this profile seems to fit.

MILLS & BOON STYLE WRITING (WITH COMMENTARY)

'Athena and the marriage counsellor'

My husband Stephanos booked these appointments in the vain hope that it would save our marriage. I was doubtful, but as soon as I approached the gold plated plaque which read 'Dr. Greene - Marriage Counsellor', I felt at ease. The door swung open, stealing the breath from my lungs. All I could see was his piercing green eyes locked on mine. ''Mr and Mrs Kostas?'' he called us into his office, I was fixated on every word that left his lips; I was unresponsive. The walls of his office were a pristine painted white, untainted by impurities. Every time he spoke I felt my face turn a deeper shade of scarlet but I had to make sure Stephanos didn't notice. How could someone I had just met evoke such a reaction? He had a hold on me.

''Hi I'm Stephanos, this is my wife Athena.'' I was lost for words, all that came out were utterances. He shot me a quizzical look and asked ''so what can I do for you today?'' My mind was flooding with responses to this question. Should I just admit how unhappy I am? How can I escape this marriage? Although my internal monologue was crying out for help, like a damsel in distress, all I could let out was a sigh of exhaustion. I sure Stephanos had the right intentions, however this seems superfluous to me. Stephanos tried to eliminate the space between us but I knew that this couldn't be saved and deep down I think he did too. 

Dr Greene was the type of guy who had it all and knew it, but not in an arrogant way. He knew he was superior to me but he didn't come across supercilious in the slightest; in fact he was sweet and understanding. His soothing voice made his comments seem less patronising and more constructive. We answered a load of questions regarding our relationship and had discussed a plethora of resolutions but I had dismissed them all. I'm not much of an optimist. After going through the mountains of paperwork set in front of us containing exercises to strengthen the trust in our relationship it was time to leave. I was glad to leave but reluctant that I was leaving with Stephanos and not Dr Greene. 



COMMENTARY: 
*According to Lakoff's deficit theory, women use a wider variety of colour terms to describe things. This is evident in the text as the narrator is 1st person from Athena's point of view and she describes Dr Greene as having piercing green eyes. She also describes her face as turning a deeper shade of scarlet and the walls of the office as 'pristine white' and 'untainted by imperfections'. This supports Lakoff's theory as the female character is paying a lot of attention to the surroundings and being very descriptive

*Athena overthinks the situation a lot and this is also, according to theories, conventional for women. Dr Greene is portrayed as having a cool head and being calm but powerful. This is the antithesis of Athena who is anxious and stressed out by his presence. This is evident in the text as her internal monologue is going into over drive and she is over analysing the situation.

IS TEXTING KILLING LANGUAGE?

Texting has for a long time been blamed for the faults in today's use of the English language, but should it really be held responsible? It has been argued that texting is having a major impact on the way young people today communicate as they're replacing Standard English with a vast combination of phrases and sayings. For some reason this appears to worry some people, however they are failing to see the reality of the situation - no one speaks like they text (well at least they shouldn't).

Our vocabularies are constantly growing and have been for thousands of years so why are we punishing the further production of more words or sayings? Take LOL for example. The abbreviation LOL has been around for years but its definition is constantly evolving. It initially meant 'laughing out loud' (or 'lots of love' if you're over 40) but today it is used in a very different way and is rarely used to indicate humour. LOL has matured into an indicator of sympathy between texters. Here's an example: 
Tom texts: ''what u doin??'' 
Kate texts: ''doing homework lol:('' 
Tom texts: ''aww lol''
It is evident from these messages that the activity of doing homework is not amusing in any way, shape, or form. So LOL has been used as a way to make a message seem less serious as otherwise it is very difficult to understand the meaning/tone behind someone's message if they fail to indicate what they mean exactly; hence why Emojis are so popular.

The majority of texts sent from young people to young people are very short and mainly only consist of a few words or phrases, therefore they can come across as blunt or abrupt without intending to. Emojis fix this issues as there is a plethora of emoticons to send that are fit for any situation. It is even possible to have a full conversation using just emojis as each one has developed its own specific definition that is universally known. Emojis are essentially their own language that is 'spoken' by thousands of people daily. Emojis are the equivalent of the short hand language used when taking notes during writing. Symbols and abbreviations used in subject specific or general writing are used to make the most of the time given to write and Emojis are the same (or at least very similar). Texts are a quick way of communicating with someone so Emojis maximise the efficiency of texts as one little picture can say a lot. 

Granted, all these things are used in written communication but they are rarely, if ever, used in spoken language. I can gladly admit that I have never heard anyone say ''happy face Emoji'' or ''cookie Emoji'' aloud and I highly doubt I will ever hear this. Overall, it's unlikely that text speak will ever majorly affect spoken language, whether it's negative or not. I believe we should praise text language as it's encouraging young people to explore words and sayings and is producing a wide variety of new terms to be welcomed to the English language.

COMPARING MODES OF COMMUNICATION

The way we communicate via technology varies dependent on whom we are talking to and how we are talking to them. For example, if you were to compare the register of a text message or tweet you would find it is very different to that of a phone call. 

Many of us use texts as a way to quickly communicate with someone as it is easy and there are many linguistic techniques you can use to make the most out of their efficiency. For example: abbreviations such as 'lol', 'brb' and 'wuu2' have been specifically designed to save time and still get the point across. Although these letter combinations are commonly seen all over the internet it is highly unlikely that they would ever feature in an email. Emails typically have a much more formal register and are typically fully punctuated and written using correct grammar. 

However if you were to compare text messages and phone calls you'd be surprised by the similarities. As we've established, people tend not to use standard grammar or punctuation in text messages and this is due to the way we use texts. People usually write texts as though they were to be speaking them. This leads to the lack of full stops or correct grammar as it's not what we tend to think of when we speak. No one speaks in fully though out sentences, we all talk following a more disjointed structure and texts also do so. 

TED TALKS: TEXTING

MAIN POINTS:

*Texting and writing are not the same thing

*Speech is much more telegraphic

*People don't speak like they write and don't write like they speak

*Texting is loose in structure - no one fully punctuates or uses perfect grammar

*Texting is ''fingered speech''

*'lol' has developed into a pragmatic particle

*'slash' is used as a way to divert the conversation topi

*Texting is a new language developed by young people

OPINION OF SPEAKER:

*He states at the end of his speech that the development of slang and texting language is a 'linguistic miracle' 

*He believes that the new language being formed is astounding and isn't getting enough credit as it is seen as 'mundane'

MY OPINION:

*I agree that text speak is an amazing concept and that it isn't appreciated enough. Abbreviations have been used throughout time and it's only now that they're being recognized as having a major impact on language.

*Texting is simply another form of communication as is speaking and writing.

OPINION ARTICLE: CHANGING ACCENTS

Most people in England speak English, but depending where you are in England it can sound like you're speaking a completely different language. This, in effect, causes a 'dialect barrier' and leads to people disguising their true accents. Whether this is due to insecurity or a sub-conscious decision, we all do it. Some of us change our voices around children, some of us change our voices around different friendship circles and some of us change our voices when we answer the phone; although these examples seem harmless a lot of people believe they can have negative consequences. 

''Hello?''- this is typically how most of us answer the phone. But is this how we would greet our friends or family members if they called us? We want to give off a friendly vibe or make a good first impression on the phone if we are being called by an unknown number, as it could be someone important. What if you answered a serious phone call from your boss by saying 'sup?' (embarrassing, right?) It all relates back to self-consciousness and wanting to fit in with the majority. People make assumptions about a person based on their accent. Typically someone who speaks the Queen's English is viewed as more intelligent than someone with a thick regional accent. Although this is completely untrue it's what some assume.   

THE GUARDIAN VS THE DAILY MAIL: DIFFERENCES

Asyndetic listing, subject specific lexis, rhetorical questions. These are all examples of techniques used by both the Guardian and the Daily Mail. Although they use a range of features in similar ways, there are a few subtle differences. 

Both articles provide the audience with additional information however they do this in varying ways. The article from the Guardian provides hyperlinks to other texts featuring extended information on the topic highlighted. This makes it easy for the audience to familiarize themselves with the subject so they fully comprehend the views being presented to them by the Guardian. However the Daily Mail chooses to convey additional facts via statistics and numerical data. For example 'some 57%...' or 'YouGov found that 45%...' This shows they are looking at the situation logically rather than considering emotions and taking into account the trauma causes; this clearly reflects the argument.

The Guardian article features inverted commas throughout and uses them to infer sarcasm or to condescend the views of the opposition. For example when listing the labels that are used to describe the 'migrants', such as: ''displaced people'', ''illegal asylum seekers'' and ''economic migrants''. This linguistic technique has been used to make the opposing left wing views appear more negative. This demonstrates the juxtaposition between their opinions and manipulates the audiences perspective to make the Guardian appear positive and in the right.