A Level English Language Exploring Language Monday 18

A Level English Language Exploring Language Monday, 18 January 2021

Lesson Objectives • To explore discourse structure of writing • To apply analysis and evaluation skills to texts • To produce our own written texts, considering the linguistic choices made

Feedback form previous weeks: • You have taken very well to writing about multi-modality/graphology – just make sure comments are steeped in linguistic equivalents also to fully develop • You are making good links to named theorists – be prepared to say how the text goes against theorists too • People’s depth of analysis is really improving – continue to combine together techniques, and consider the grammar in as much depth as lexis and semantics

Exploring Discourse Structure of writing: First Questions • Who is the narrator or author of the text? What are his/her attitudes and how are they expressed? • What is the context of the text? Is it public/private, official/informal, factual/fictional, literary/non-literary, prose/poetry? • Does it have an obvious function - to instruct, to persuade, to inform? • What is the genre of the text? Is it a newspaper article, a letter, a gothic novel, a romance, a legal report, an instruction manual? • Does it draw on linguistic features from different genres? Does it subvert generic expectations? • How does the text relate to other texts or cultures? • Which linguistic register does the text use? Is it archaic, formal, technical, casual, colloquial? Does it draw on particular social, regional, occupational dialects? Read the text together now and explore the above questions

Focus Questions to guide analysis: Remember to identify specific language features Para 1. What does the author assume about the reader? Para 2. How does the author challenge the intelligence of the TV stars? Para 3. How are the TV stars dehumanised and presented as immoral? Para 4. How does the writer challenge the masculinity of the male stars? Para 5. How does the author use other cultural references to criticise James especially? Para 6. How does the author provide a historical context? Para 7 and 8. What wider social point is the author making? Para 9. How does the author integrate the future into his analysis? Para 10. What does the writer suggest is a wider purpose for reality TV?

Para 1. What does the author assume about the reader? A curious sensation swept over me the other day when I was idly flipping through TV channels and found myself accidentally striding brain-first into an episode of MTV's Geordie Shore. If you've never heard of it, it's a "structured reality" programme in which a gaggle of unbelievable idiots are stuck in a fancy house and intermittently hosed down with alcohol.

Para 2. How does the author challenge the intelligence of the TV stars? I use the term "unbelievable idiots" for good reason. I don't believe they exist. For one thing, their level of idiocy is hard to accept on a human level. There's a reason the show isn't called Cleverclogs Corner. You'd have more chance of decent conversation if you sewed a larynx into a lamb shank and asked if it'd seen any good films lately. They communicate using facial expressions and farts, with the occasional howl of rage thrown in for good measure. Even when attempting to mate.

Para 3. How are the TV stars dehumanised and presented as immoral? I say "attempting to mate". I mean "thumping away at each other's goolies like a builder grimly trying to knock a hole in a wall before lunch". Since Geordie Shore is broadcast on television, where graphic footage of penetrative sex is only permitted in an educational context (or when Ofcom isn't looking), the camera stands back a bit for these interludes. There a lot of shuddering duvets: sex is depicted beneaththe-covers, in a locked-off wide shot, night vision style, just like a wildlife programme about rutting bison, but less romantic.

Para 4. How does the writer challenge the masculinity of the male stars? But let's not judge them by the content of their character. Let's judge them by the colour of their skin, which is terracotta. Mostly. Apart from the pale ones. The way they look is the second unbelievable thing about them. Not all of them; most of them are sort of normal. But one or two of the men look … well they don't look real, put it that way. They've got sculpted physiques, sculpted hairdos, sculpted eyebrows, and as far as I can tell, no skin pores. They're like characters from the Japanese fighting game Tekken – which, if you're not familiar with it, is noted for a documentarystyle slavish adherence to realism.

Para 5. How does the author use other cultural references to criticise James especially? The most unsettling of the Geordies is a man called James, who looks precisely like a terrifying vinyl sex doll version of Ricky Gervais. Or possibly a CGI Manga impersonation of a young Ed Balls. I've been to Newcastle. There's no way James is from Newcastle. He's from space. Deep space. My guess would be he's actually some form of sentient synthetic meat that crudely disguises itself as other life forms, but only to an accuracy of about 23%. He's awesomely creepy to behold. Seriously, if James popped up on the comms screen of the USS Enterprise, Captain Kirk would shit his own guts out. And that's the sort of behaviour that can undermine a leader's authority.

Para 6. How does the author provide a historical context? As I watched, I suddenly realized that this reality contestant "look" – the strangely meticulous hair, the overdone tan, the teeth, the eyebrows – this is what we'll be laughing at in 30 years' time. Just as people still insist on finding 70 s sideburns or 80 s "big hair" hilarious, so the fancydress partygoers of the future will be staggering drunkenly down the high street looking like a cross between Peter Andre and a sexually ambiguous robot.

Para 7 and 8. What wider social point is the author making? Ah, you say, but we already laugh at that look now. And you're right, we do. But try telling that to your offspring, 30 years from now. They'll assume it was all taken sincerely at the time, like those 70 s sideburns were. What's more, they'll think everyone looked like that. There won't be any photos or videos around to prove otherwise. Ah, you say a second time, but we film and photograph every waking moment of our lives! And once more, you're on to something.

Para 7 and 8. What wider social point is the author making? But nothing we film and shoot now will be compatible with whatever holographic hand widgets we'll be using in the future. And the quality will seem appalling. Think of the first phone you ever got with a built-in camera. Still got all those pictures, have you? Of course not: the quality is appalling. Some of those pixels are the size of your fist. And, besides, you lost them years ago. That phone's probably in a drawer somewhere, surrounded by defunct chargers and a hole punch you used a grand total of once.

Para 9. How does the author integrate the future into his analysis? What I'm saying is the inmates of Geordie Shore, The Only Way is Essex and Made in Chelsea represent our generation's "time capsule" for the future. That's how the people of 2042 will think we look, spoke and behaved. Which is a shame because they're not supposed to be representative. They're supposed to be different from "normal people". They're walking caricatured receptacles for spite. Their job is to make absolutely everyone who tunes in hate them. Instantly hate them. Hate them so much they can't take their eyes off them. The plucked eyebrows make it 5% faster to form a grudge, which makes James something of a genius. Turns out you can polish a turd.

Para 10. What does the writer suggest is a wider purpose for reality TV? People no longer simply aspire to be famous. They aspire to be hated. "Authorised media hate figure" is now a valid career. Which brings me to the curious sensation I mentioned at the start. I realized that maybe we need these people. Maybe we're all so angry and disappointed and bewildered, we need a free bunch of people to look down on and despise: they're a handy vessel. This is a noble public duty they're carrying out. They're our stress balls. Our punchbags. Our ballbags. If it wasn't for the cast of Geordie Shore, and countless others like them, you'd be killing your neighbours with your bare hands.

Reality Television Text Using appropriate linguistic concepts and methods, analyse the ways in which language is used in the text in the paragraph of your choice • Consider how contextual factors contribute to the creation of meaning • Aim to think about both lexis/semantice and grammar Aim to write 1 really detailed paragraph (I will share some of these next week)

Text Transformation Imagine Charlie Brooker is being interviewed on TV about his thoughts on Reality TV and more specifically the ideas mentioned in his review Write the transcript, drawing on your understanding of interviewing conventions

Commentary Write a brief commentary explaining some of the changes you made from a written to a spoken text