If Thought Corrupts Language, Language Can Also Corrupt Thought

I am going to conduct an test by comparing and contrasting the lingual resources between cardinal report articles with different muckles on the same item however different redeations of the event and other aspects strategically placed to determine whether words have the role to moderate or persuade ones thoughts through the ideologies of their own. Article 1s headline is more rectifyd and intents much more animated lexical choices, which paint more of a take care in the readers mind.Article 2 is more simplified and straight to the point, summarising bluntly. A1 is in the present tense to give a more dramatic return and add impact. A2s lexical choice evicted is in a past tense as if to say, the decision has already been made. The rest of the sentence is in a future tense, emphasising the certainty of the eviction. A2 is in a peaceful voice drawing aid away from the doers. A1s in an active voice, drawing focus to the corroboratory actions. A1s lead foc examples the subject on the confrontation using lexical choices to create an effect of epicenes, representing the travelers wish well freedom fighters.A2s lead foc works on the issue in establish and the Councils demands. Both leads reverberate the ideologies of the writers. Both articles were selective on the choice of quotes ensuring they reflected the ideologies of the articles. A1 chiefly phthisis of genuines and servicess sources considered with good credentials be execute mess usually listen to and respect points from agency figures and in that locationfore are more likely to tally or be persuaded by them, also beca pulmonary tuberculosis elite sources are considered newsworthy by the media. The articles use unidentified sources to disclaim ideological responsibilities.The specific sources they use really reflect their overall ideological message. Both use representatives i. e. Council spokesman and a source kinda of specifying the actor, which indicates writers doubts or con tention over the facts (Bell. A 1991) or it whitethorn not suit the articles representation. A1 uses a piece interest figure to put the matter into perspective because the travellers views may still be rather bias and propagandarish. A1 avoids labelling council sources with professional person titles to devalue their quote, in one case they use a matrimonial title instead in-order to derogate their authority.A2 uses qualifier determiner + noun phrase (the Dale Farm) to label travellers to subtly disclaim allegations of prejudice, emphasising dispute with that specific community. Both use a first name basis source to indicate their support. A1 qualifying labels represent the authorities negatively to demean them. A2s qualifiers were quite neutral, maybe because the writer was more foc employ on justifying their actions rather than belittling the travellers. A1 handstions support of respected worldly concern figures i. e. celebs, Bishop and UN worker.A2 mentions political figures as support, readers respect elite views and might recollect if they conceptualise its function or wrong then it must be. A1s date of tellation is in an anachronical order, throwing the reader into the scene in front elaborating and adding further cohesion. They lay down the ground work and build perplexity before reaching the climax 1. Sets scene of confrontation to grab auditory senses attention. 2. Celebration pictures. 3. Reasons for celebrating (injunction). 4. Pictures of travellers defence strategies. 5. Councils solvent to injunction. 6.Issues politics. 7. Opposing army pictures. 8. Preparations for war. 9. Supporter pictures. 10. Architecture eviction plans. 11. Finale battle. A2s sequence is more structured in the sense of opening, body and certainty, sought of an open and shut case. 1. Verdict outline decision. 2. Dispute. 3. Support. 4. Negotiations. 5. Threats. 6. Remorse. 7. Selective traveller sources. 8. Resistance. 9. Plea. 10. Denied. What is mentioned and not mentioned is a clear indication of the writers intentions on the representation of the article. Each article is coming from n ideological view point with every linguistic choice made. A2 plays excessive use of normal verb get out, to reinforce the Councils authority as in to say the travellers will comply and nobody is above the law, this gives inkling that the writer is more conservative. A1 uses a lot of modal verbs telling probability, therefore devaluing the Councils authority revealing a more liberal attitude. A2 is tactful when using pronouns, i. e. personal pronoun we is used oftentimes to give the readers a feeling of inclusivity, so that the Council can align themselves with the reader.Both discourses make use of the 3rd person pronouns i. e. they, them and their but A2 uses it in the con schoolbook to tell apart between us and them further aligning themselves with the reader. A1 uses it to avoid repetition. Both articles use rhetorical questions, which force s the reader to agree with the question and provokes them to think about the question. i. e. is there not equality under the law of this sylvan? and what are we doing throwing these population into poverty? Do we ask more poverty in the country? A1 uses antithesis i. e. arent complicated. larmingly simple and Is there, or is there not. A2 uses human rights for minorities, but.. majority have human rights too this is used to make the argument stronger and by contrasting the 2 opposites it forces the reader to compare the two ideas and therefore puts emphasis on the intended idea adding impact. A1s excessposition take a stand if we dont this will just carry on with other traveller communities adds weight to their point by enlarging the proportion of the line and adding more conviction to their argument. Both use three part lists i. e. Police, council and bailiffs, orange, yellowness and blue, their homes, their land, the money theyve spent and so on because people are homey with things that come in three and it gives the sentence rhythm making it more memorable.A1 uses plenty of metaphors small platoon, opposing forces and so ontera This paints a more elaborate picture in the readers minds and stimulates their imagination. Also it adds colour to the text and can have powerful emotional connotations, therefore being a powerful persuasive tool. A2 uses very few metaphors but for the purpose of analogical speech i. e. go on the table and weight behind this is to express a complex idea through the comparison of two ideas, which has the effect of simplifying the idea intended to be expressed. A1 uses copious amounts of collocations dominantly in metaphoric models i. e. stand-off, hard-standing etc. to add a degree of epicenes. The wish of collocations used by A2 suggests that they fate to de-dramatize the confrontation and keep the matter in perspective. A1 uses lots of epithets i. e. long-awaited, last-stand, latest debauch etc. this adds flavor to t he lexemes provoking a degree of suspense.A2s lack of epithets suggest that they want to present the information bluntly. Both use legion(predicate) presuppositions, for example the sketch saying leave the site or the LibDem conference will be transmitted. the implicature is that the authorities cannot do anything except talk. or the court will find in the Councils, presuming that the court will agree with them or we are doing the right thing because it is a breach in criminal law, the presumption is that they know what is right but what may be legal in one country may be illegal in another, so doesnt really determine what is right and what is wrong.An implicature of if you are human beings. imply that to have morals is to be human, which is a strong statement because it pries on the readers moral values. Presuppositions reveal the ideologies of the writer and manipulates or persuades the reader towards their perspective of the matter. A2 uses the sound bites the time for talking in around over Sound bites capture the overall message of the writers intentions and are attention grabbers, making the statement much more memorable.Both Articles are in a declarative mood because they both have the primary purpose to inform and both choose different lexis to represent the articles differently. A1 uses a theatrical cuddle in their lexical choices, painting a more elaborate picture and dramatizes the discourse. They use lots of emotive linguistic communication, with strong connotations i. e. dangerous, joy etc. This draws on the readers emotions and therefore persuades them to agree with their point of view. A2 uses less emotive terminology and uses more of a descripted approach, this is a registry tactic, choosing a more political register.As a broadsheet The Guardian in general is more aimed at professionals and may consider their readers as intelligent and therefore presume that they want a more descriptive and informative discourse. The discourse is formal a nd they use more complex lexis and Standard English to reflect their stereotypical earshot of upper middle class readers. The Mail is a tabloid aimed in the main at the working class and has a secondary purpose to entertain, thereof why the linguistic process is more informal. They use imple and frequently colloquial and non-standard lexis because if you use the language of your readers it strengthens your persuasion because they can identify with the linguistics and so the writer can manipulate the readers thoughts through language theyre familiar with. A1 makes good use of pre-modifiers i. e. last gasp, tense etc. to add suspense and climax. The lexis elect by the papers have been specially chosen to have a certain amount of impact/effect on the reader in-order to manipulate the readers perspective to homogenize with their ideologies.The angle of facts from A2 represents the travellers as a burden to society, whereas A1 angle of facts represents the travellers as fighting for their human rights Both use the euphemism travellers A1 uses pagan minority and A2 minority, physical support and physical solidarity this is so that they are politically correct in some cases and to not cause offence to the reader and to turn a negative into a domineering to a degree. note the repetition to emphasize physical. A1 and A2 dominantly use inactive sentences in their discourses but for different effects.A1 plays on the passiveness of the influence transitiveness in order to victimize the travellers and draw attention to the doers bad actions. A2s passive sentences draw attention away from the doers. A1 uses nominalisation i. e. joy, happy, dangerous process etc. This is to emphasize their good properties/actions(A. mooney 2011 p70) and maintain the positive aspects by regardless the doer. The writers use over-wording, this is to reinforce the overall massage of that representation. A1 uses the equivalence of homelessinto destitution? .. more poverty? And A2 uses r acist, as it is now politically correctethnic minority. This adds lexical cohesion and emphasizes the statements points adding impact. A2 uses contrastive pair if they cant sleep together in a scrapyard, where can they live? By contrasting these two pairs they put emphasis on the pair which has priority for the function of the statement, adding extra impact. A1 makes intentional use of alliteration i. e. Battle of Basildon, Death of Danger etc. Alliteration makes the phrase catchy and memorable adding impact.A1s copious amounts of pictures entices the readers almost placing them at the scene. The pictures have been strategically selected to represent the travellers in a positive light. They use symbolism in some pictures using arms aloft question which is associated with revolutionists and somewhat represents them as freedom fighters. The pictures were predominantly women and also use sexual activity labels i. e. female, woman, maybe this was because women are perceived as less threatening than men therefore less aggressive, which will have more of a positive representation.Both articles use the superlative largest but for slightly different effect. A1 uses it to increase the musical scale of the scene, which escalates the picture. But A2 adds the post-modifier Irish to draw attention to the members and size of the community which people might negatively stereotype as gypsies. This experiment reinforces the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis of linguistic relativism being that language has a bearing on the way we think It also adds collateral to the theory of newspeak in that by controlling language you can also control thought(A.Mooney 2011 p32, p41). So to conclude I agree with Orwell (1998) that language can corrupt thought because as weve detect using particular(prenominal) linguistic choices can have a particular persuasive effect on the readers and therefore can be used to manipulate or change ones perspective towards the writers ideological view but at the same time everybody is an individual with their own ideologies and perspectives, so yes language can corrupt thought but may not needfully do so.BIBLOGRAPHY * Mooney. A 2011 spoken communication, Society and Power introduction, Routledge London * Bell. A 1991 The Language of New Media, Blackwell Oxford * Fowler. R 1991 Language in the News discourse and political orientation in the press, Routledge London