ENG.

32511
Asynchronous Activity: October 13, 2022

Name 3ELS Date Date Submitted Score /30

Read the three given Journal Articles and complete the table below.

Author(s), Date published, Theoretical / Research Methodology Findings/Results Implications for Future
Publisher Conceptual Framework Question(s) Research
JA1 Snell, J. (2014, January). PRACTICE THEORY This kind of studies Qualitative- This review has traced one This study is important to
Social Class and Practice theory seeks "to cannot be Exploratory Research specific track in the pragmatics researchers
describe the articulations adequately covered According to George development of because it illustrates how a
Language. between the practices of in a single article. (2022), exploratory sociolinguistic class sociolinguistic theory of
ResearchGate. social actors 'on the ground' Instead, this essay research is a technique analysis. With a focus on language and social class
Retrieved October 21, and the large "structures" explores a single strategy that looks at language variation, it must take "a pragmatic
2022, from and "systems" that both story in the research issues that initially adopted the early viewpoint" into account in
https://www.researchg limit those practices and development of haven't been thoroughly theory that large-scale class order to be appropriate.
are ultimately vulnerable to sociolinguistics' examined before. structures dictate linguistic
ate.net/publication/303 being modified by them" class analysis. behavior before switching
617767 (Ortner 2006: 2). It maps the shift Exploratory research to more recent theories that
from early survey often has a qualitative place a higher value on
In an effort to comprehend research, which focus. However, a social practice and speaker
the connection between claimed that class research with a large agency and have shown
language and social class, hierarchies drive sample size that is that class meanings can
this provides a potential linguistic behavior, exploratory in nature serve as a resource for
strategy. This strategy was to more current might also be work taking place at the
developed by Penelope techniques, which quantitative. Due of its micro-level of interactions
Eckert in the area of emphasize social adaptable and open- and relationships. This
variationist sociolinguistics practice and speaker ended character, it is reflects a broader
(e.g. Eckert and agency, with a focus also sometimes referred theoretical trend in
McConnell-Ginet 1992, on language to as interpretative sociolinguistics away from
Eckert 2000). According to variance. Because it research or a grounded structural sociology and
Eckert (2000: 3), a theory explains how an theory method. toward views on social
of linguistic variation as acceptable activity (Coupland 2001).
social practice views sociolinguistic Local ethnographies and
speakers as establishing theory of language interactional analyses must
social categories and and social class now take precedence over
actively creating the social must interact with extensive surveys and
meaning of variation language in use and quantitative analysis as a
(Eckert 2000: 3). The best hence with "a result of the change in
example of this strategy is
found in her ethnography viewpoint," this tale
of Belten High, a school in is significant to
Detroit, Michigan, United academics interested
States.
(Verschueren 1994,
pragmatic theoretical direction.
However, neither change is
definitive. An integrated
strategy that pays attention
in pragmatics to both the regularities of
sociolinguistic structure
2009). and the meanings that are
formed in local discourse
settings is necessary for an
accurate understanding of
language and social class
(Coupland 2007).
Rampton's research, for
instance, found that
teenagers from various
ethnic origins had been
socialized into broader
patterns of British class
stratification in speech via
routine style-shifting that
was discovered by
quantitative analysis. This
prior context was crucial
for understanding
Rampton's description of
the "class awareness" that
stylized posh and Cockney
used to communicate.
However, an oppressive
class system did not
necessarily subjugate the
teenagers in Rampton's
research. When speakers
used this structure to
establish local meanings
and identities, as shown by
the micro-analysis of
certain stylization moments
(see also Robert's use of
howay to express
leadership and authority),
confident students like
Hanif sometimes disrupted
prevailing class
conceptions.

JA2 Carli, L. L. (1990, EXPECTATION STATES
November). Gender, THEORY
According to expectation
language, and states theory, differences in
influence. Journal of face-to-face encounters
Personality and depend on the participants'
Social Psychology, relative positions (Berger,
59(5), 941–951. Fisek, Norman, & Zelditch,
1977). According to this
https://doi.org/10.103 approach, status varies
7/0022- depending on the cultural
3514.59.5.941 context. In other words,
people may have traits that
in one culture or
circumstance suggest
relatively low status but in
another culture or
circumstance show high
status or transmit no status
information. In American
society, a person's color,
class, education, age,
employment, physical
beauty, and gender may
serve as diffuse status
characteristics, traits that
are used to judge a person's
competence, ability, or
worth, especially in the
People are socialized into
specific speech patterns,
and they do have some
awareness of the larger
social structure (which
explains why variationist
research continues to reveal
recurring patterns of social
and stylistic stratification);
however, as the work
described in section 4
shows, speakers can also be
innovative in their language
use, imaginatively
reworking class meanings
and applying them in local
contexts.
This article focuses Quantitative- The conversation subject The findings of both
on a few linguistic Experimental was taken out of the research suggest that
variations that have Research analysis since it had no gender disparities in
been connected to bearing on any of the language may be
gender-based According to Bhandari outcomes. Separate ANO significantly influenced by
disparities in status (2022), researchers VAS were needed for the status. Status is obviously
and power. It change independent same-sex and mixed-sex not the sole factor,
specifically looks at factors in studies to see dyads since gender was however. It is probable that
how gender how they affect both a within-group disparities in norms that
disparities in dependent variables. In variable for the mixed-sex have been formed for male
language are a controlled experiment, dyads and a between-group and female groups are the
impacted by the sex every factor outside the variable for the same-sex cause of the gender
makeup of dyads, independent variable is dyads. ' Because each variances in the usage of
and how this in turn kept under control or mixed-sex dyad included intensifiers and verbal
affects social constant to ensure that both a male and a female reinforcers. Such conduct,
influence. it has no impact on the participant, a 2 X 29 in example, could be a
dependent variable. (Gender X Dyad) repeated- reflection of individuals'
measures ANOVA was expectations that
Holding variables at a carried out. Because some encounters between women
constant or limited level same-sex dyads were would often be very social.
(such as maintaining a entirely male and others
constant room were exclusively female, a
temperature) is an 2 X 15 (Gender X Dyad)
example of controlling ANOVA was performed
a variable. Other for the same-sex dyads.
methods of controlling The approach employed by
a variable include 61 to combine the two data
measuring it so that you analyses comprised
can statistically account calculating a linear
lack of precise information for it in your analyses combination of the means
(Berger & Fisek, 1974; and randomly as well as a linear
Berger, Rosenholtz, & distributing it combination of the
Zelditch, 1980; Eagly, throughout your between- and within-groups
1983). People with a experiment (e.g., using error components. This
comparatively high status a random order of procedure has previously
are regarded to be more tasks). been utilized (Carli, 1989).
competent, perform better,
and have more desirable The results of the study
qualities than those with a included t tests for the main
low status. They are also effects of gender, sex
given more opportunity to composition, and gender
perform well, which leads and composition
to their being more interaction.
influential (Berger et al,
1977, 1980). Additionally,
it is seen as inappropriate
for a person with lower
status to act very
assertively in interactions
with those who have higher
statuses since this might be
seen as an effort to elevate
oneself at the cost of other
group members (Meeker &
Weitzel-O'Neill, 1977). As
a result, those of low status
who act assertively run the
danger of being rejected by
others (Berger et al., 1980;
Meeker & Weitzel-O'Neill,
1977).

The findings that

stereotypical feminine
traits are rated less
favorably than
stereotypical masculine
traits (Broverman, Vogel,
Broverman, Clarkson, &
Rosenkrantz, 1972) and
that women are thought to
be less competent than men
(Lockheed & Hall, 1976;
Meeker & Weitzel-O'Neill,
1977) show that women
 generally have lower status
than men. In exchanges
between men and women,
women would have a lesser
status than males if there
was no explicit information
regarding the skill or
competency of group
members. Gender,
however, would not
function as a diffuse status
feature in same-sex
interactions since it would
not transmit any
information about the
relative worth, competence,
or capacity of the group's
various members. This
means that women would
be given less chances to
contribute to tasks, would
get less support for their
efforts, and would have
less influence than males in
mixed-sex organizations
but not same-sex ones.
JA3 Holtgraves, T. (2005, Powerful Language and The researchers Participants were 63 The main goal of this study Variability in linguistic
March). The Role of Powerless Language opted to investigate female and 40 male was to investigate the power is undoubtedly a
Theory this dimension first-year psychology effects of various language conspicuous element of
Different Markers of When one or more because it has students who got some power indicators on how individuals use
Linguistic linguistic features—such as attracted the course credit for persuasion. There has been language; the researchers
Powerlessness in tag questions, hesitations, attention of participating. With a conflicting prior study on opted to investigate this
Persuasion. Journal disclaimers, hedges, polite researchers from a mean age of 19.1 years this subject. According to dimension since this
of Language and forms, and so forth—are wide range of fields
and a standard deviation some research (e.g., variable has been of
present, it is referred to as for more than 25 of 2.3 years, the Holtgraves & Lasky, 1999), interest to academics across
Social Psychology, "powerless language." years, and becauseparticipants' ages varied language indicators of a range of fields for more
24(1), 3–24. Powerful language alludes linguistic power from 18 to 36. They helplessness may affect than 25 years.
https://doi.org/10.117 to the lack of these variability is took part in classroom persuasion; nevertheless,
7/0261927x0427303 characteristics. Lakoff's unquestionably an activities in groups of other studies have shown Surprisingly, not much
4 (1975) earlier study important aspect of two to seven people. no correlation between the study has been done to
connected various types of how individuals use Participants heard a two (Gibbons et al., 1991). determine how this factor
language usage to language. message advocating for Additionally, earlier studies affects persuasion, and the
disparities in gender senior students in all have employed both written research that has been done
(powerless language was Surprisingly, not fields to take and spoken signals as well has had mixed findings.
believed more typical of much study has comprehensive final as a variety of linguistic
women than men). been done to examinations. Sample (and paralinguistic)
 However, the results of determine how this arguments taken from elements that were thought
studies on gender factor affects Petty and Cacioppo to be indicators of linguistic
differences were decidedly persuasion, and the made up the message impotence. The current
conflicting (e.g., Crosby & research that has (1986). The design was study set out to: (a)
Nyquist, 1977; Dubois & been done has had entirely crossover, reevaluate the impact of
Crouch, 1975; Holtgraves, mixed findings. amongst participants, 3 these indicators on
1997; Rundquist, 1992), (linguistic marker: none persuasion using both
which led researchers like vs. hesitancy vs. written (Experiment 1) and
O'Barr (1982) to draw the hedging) 2 (relevance: auditory (Experiment 2)
conclusion that a putative low vs. high). A communications; (b)
women's linguistic style is participant was placed investigate the potential
neither unique to women or in one of the six that these markers have
limited to them. Most conditions at random. varied impacts on
importantly, differences in persuasion. The following
women's language seem to is a summary of our
have less to do with gender findings.
specifically and more to do
with social helplessness. First, it seems that language
As a result, what was expressions of helplessness
formerly thought of as a have definite, detrimental
feminine linguistic style consequences on
eventually earned the name persuasion, with a few
"powerless linguistic significant exceptions to be
style." discussed below.

In a number of Compared to a message

circumstances, researchers without these markers, in
have looked at the effects both Experiments 1 and 2,
of a powerless language communications that
style. For instance, in the featured hedges or
setting of a witness's hesitances elicited greater
evidence in court, unfavorable sentiments
Erickson, Lind, Johnson, regarding the proposal,
and O'Barr (1978) looked message, and source. Both
at the effects of strong vs written and aural elements
weak language. had the same impact, and it
was quite consistent across
Participants listened to degrees of problem
courtroom statements that significance.
differed only in the
language employed by Second, the current
them (powerful vs. findings imply that the
powerless). Hedge words, impact of these markers on
intensifiers, formal syntax, persuasion differ according
and polite forms were all to processing depth and
used in powerless claims. marker type. In all tests,
 Their findings showed that, when participants were
regardless of the witness' motivated to digest the
gender, the strong style information, all language
produced better perceived signals of helplessness had
witness credibility and detrimental impacts on
increased acceptance of the persuasion. The outcomes
viewpoint promoted of Experiment 2 point to
compared to the weak the possibility that this
approach. happens because these
indicators serve as
distractions, which reduce
the total effect of
persuasive arguments. In
Experiment 2, when the
message featured signs of
linguistic impotence, the
ordinarily compelling
influence of powerful
arguments (compared to
weak arguments) was
abolished. Similar results
were found for cognitive
reactions, indicating that
the diminished
persuasiveness of the
argument was caused by
participants' thoughts
becoming more negative as
they digested the message.
The three indicators that
were looked at in this
research and the impact
were comparable.
Take Note: Just leave the column blank if it is not evident from the Journal Article. You may adjust the spacing of the table. You may also add another page.