Our Previous Samples

Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta, better known as Lady Gaga is one of the most unconventional woman artist and one of the best-selling of all time. She started her musical career at 15, escalating faster than anyone every music charts. She currently has several Guinness World Records, three Brit Awards and six Grammy Awards, among others. Her debut album The Fame with its chart-topping singles Just Dance and Poker Face helped her rise to prominence in 2008. The next year, 2009 – The Fame Monster, her follow-up album featuring Bad Romance and Alejandro proved successful as well. The Fame Monster’s first single’s music video, Bad Romance was released on 24th of November 2009 and uploaded by LadyGagaVEVO on YouTube. In April 2010, the video became the most watched on YouTube and helped Gaga win Video of the Year at the 2010 MTV Video Music Awards, and Best Short Form Music Video at the Grammy’s. The video’s director was Francis Lawrence who worked alongside Gaga herself, Thomas Kloss, the director of photography and Gaga’s creative team, Haus of Gaga that took care of the art direction.

Originally, the video was supposed to be shot in New York City but because of Gaga’s schedule, it was shot in Los Angeles over a period of two days. Moreover, Gaga wanted more elaborate sets, including outdoor ones but because of budgetary reasons, the idea was scrapped. In order to better understand the video and the story it depicts, I am going to deconstruct it by using both semiotic and narrative analysis. The whole idea of the music video is to portray the tough female spirit – for which she designed a pair of razor-blade sunglasses that she is wearing at the beginning of the video but also to show how the entertainment industry can simulate human trafficking, by selling products and perceiving women as commodities. In the initial situation, we are introduced to a Gaga sitting on a chair, surrounded by both men and women. We can hear a creepy music playing in the background but everything and everyone seem to be inert until she presses the “play” button on a sound bar. The video continues with Gaga and another 6 women emerging from something resembling a high-tech coffin.

At the beginning, she looks deprived of her senses, with her eyes, ears and nose covered. This kind of deprivation is a technique used to torture prisoners or mind-controlled slaves in order to “break” them and facilitate their re-education. For us, this could mean that Gaga is an amateur, not really knowing what she’s doing in the music industry. In the next image, she appears to be talking to herself in the mirror – reminiscent of the movie “Who’s Tommy”, where a boy that becomes deaf, dumb and blind after a traumatic event is only becoming responsive when staring at a mirror. The next scene shows a “wide-eyed” and innocent Gaga who, while still drugged, tries to wash off her sins by taking a bath. Everything is white here, including her outfit, background and bathtub to express innocence and purity. We can now easily say that Gaga is a victim, one that appears to be struggling with understanding the background in which she wakes up. Two women appear beside her and begin to roughly handle her. Gaga tries to fight them in the beginning but when she realizes she can’t, she accepts her condition and goes with the flow. She is then forced to drink what appears to be vodka, which is, in fact, an MTV-friendly substitute for drugs. The idea underneath this is that mind-controlled sex slaves are heavily drugged to numb their thoughts and make them easy to manipulate.

The following two scenes depict Gaga in two different states: the scene in which she’s in the shower might be the scene preceding the one she’s in her white outfit, being so secure about herself. In the shower, she appears like a shadow figure, slightly emaciated, visibly suffering, while in the next scene, Gaga is undressed and forced to perform in front of a bunch of men. This is also the moment when our victim transforms herself in a princess, accepting that she can’t change her condition but realizing she should stop whining about it and take action. The men could represent the dark force that rules the music industry and the masks – their hidden nature. Each man is a record company, bidding the highest to sign her. Our princess seems to be aware of the process and leaves her shyness behind, while struggling to give the men her best performance. She then heads towards a particular man, one that she might like better, given the circumstances. She entices him and the man falls for her charms and bids to gain her for himself. In the next two scenes, Gaga appears to have changed her view towards the men and also her outfits. One scene depicts her at the center of planetary orbits, while in the scene with the diamonds that float around her, she appears to have a cross on her “privates” – which is definitely a defiant sign, shown in disrespect.

After this, our princess is required to fulfill her duties as the sex slave she is and give herself out to her winning bidder. She then enters a completely white room, in a white polar bear fur-coat and faces the man who bought her, completely wearing black. The room is very symbolic, both visually and narratively. The two gazelle heads on each side of the bed refer to Baphomet, the horned idol of Western occultism, representing the music industry. We then find out that Gaga isn’t offering herself to her winning bidder, but to her idol – the music industry. She wants to be initiated and accepted amongst his disciples – she wants to be an insider, and she doesn’t want “to be friends” with the music industry. The bed catching on fire represents that her idol accepted her offering – and the man was just a means for her to obtain the fame she wanted. Another scene plays simultaneously with the arson scene – Gaga and her masked dancers are dressed in red, which is the color of sacrifice and initiation. The princess is innocent no longer – she has become her own hero and her winning bidder’s worst nightmare. She is now initiated and accepted as an insider in the music industry – the virginal white garments she was wearing before being replaced by a bloody red are a visual confirmation.

The final scene shows Gaga lying in bed with the burned skeleton of her winning bidder. We can notice how everything caught fire and was burnt in this scene, except for the two gazelle heads, proving that she ultimately got what she wanted, playing the game on her own terms. When you first listen to the lyrics, one might get the impression that they seem to be about her wanting a relationship with some kind of psychopath. The video however, reveals that the psychopath is the music industry. The song starts with what appears to be a chant that will repeat itself throughout the end – “Rah-rah-ah-ah-ah-ah!” could refer to the ancient Egyptian sun god (remember the razor blades sunglasses? The lenses look like they have a shining sun on them), while “Roma-roma-mamaa!” might be a reference to the Roman Catholic Church. The first two stanzas reveal the sickness and wrongness of what Gaga is seeking – “I want your ugly,/ … your disease,/ … your drama,/ … your leather-studded kiss in the sand”. She knows all this about the music industry and she still desires it. There is an obvious sense of sadomasochism – she seems to know that this love will hurt her and treat her badly, but she’s up for it anyway.

The next and last two stanzas make up a mix of horrific evil – “I want your horror,/ … your design/ Cause you’re a criminal/ As long as you’re mine” and hardcore sex references – “I want your psycho/ Your vertigo stick/ Want you in my rear window/ Baby you’re sick”. During the bridge, Gaga almost cries singing “I don’t wanna be friends“, meaning she has no interest in being an outsider of the music industry, she wants to be part of it. In addition, “I want your love and,/ All your lovers’ revenge” means she wants the undivided attention of the music industry to the point that she also wants the hatred of anyone who’s jealous of her.

Keep in mind:
This is only a sample.

Get a custom paper now from our expert writers.

All in all, Lady Gaga’s music video, Bad Romance is one of the densest and most symbolic I’ve ever watched. Once deconstructed, the music video describes indeed the Bad Romance of the music industry, accurately showing the steps one must take in order to become part of it – submission, control, negotiations, initiation, secrecy and, most important, embracing the dark forces in the music industry.

Table of contents

1. Introduction
2. The power of Lady Macbeth
3. Conclusion
4. Works Cited

Introduction

The play Macbeth was written by William Shakespeare in the 17th century. Throughout the play we meet a variety of female characters, including Macbeth. There are many scenarios in the play where Lady Macbeth has proven to be a powerful, commanding and dominant female character. In act one scene 5, Shakespeare writes “I may pour my spirits in thine ear”, in this quote we notice Lady Macbeth mentioning she wants to poison her husband, Macbeth. This is a prime example of power displayed by Lady Macbeth, as women in the 17th century wouldn’t never have even considered to kill their husband. Another excellent example of Lady Macbeths power is when she says, “unsex me here” meaning for her feminine side to be stripped away, she wants to be seen as a woman with power. This reflects on how powerful Lady Macbeth truly is as in the 17th century women would never have dreamed to think or say this. At times throughout the play Lady Macbeth seems to be in complete control in her relationship with Macbeth, as she uses persuasive techniques on Macbeth to get things her way and what she wants. This further illustrates how powerful she is, as typically in the 17th century men were in control of their wife’s, as women didn’t have a say.

The power of Lady Macbeth

On Macbeth’s day of success, Shakespeare introduced Lady Macbeth by reading out a letter from her husband. In the 17th century, many women didn’t have the confidence and power which Lady Macbeth had, this made her character very abnormal in comparison to other women. In act one scene five, Shakespeare mentions “spirits”, meaning poison, Shakespeare mentions “spirits” a number of time during this part of the play which shows Lady Macbeths further manipulation and power. Although this could also mean the courage needed to wipe out Macbeth humanity. This also has links to the witches, as they were another powerful female character in the play. Lady Macbeth also uses a commanding tone, we know this as Lady Macbeth says, “come you spirits”, In this quote Shakespeare uses an imperative, which creates that commanding and powerful tone for Lady Macbeth. Shakespeare yet again uses another imperative when Lady Macbeth says, “stop” to again make a commanding tone which Lady Macbeth displays during the play.

In act one scene seven Shakespeare writes, “From this time such I account thy love coward”. In this quote we notice Lady Macbeth calling her husband a “coward”. The adjective “coward” is ironic as Macbeth was known to be a ruthless war hero, “Thane of Cawdor”, The weak woman calling the “brave” man a coward. Shakespeare uses first person when Lady Macbeth calls her husband a coward. By Lady Macbeth calling Macbeth a coward, she is degrading him, damaging his self-esteem and also his mental state. In this quote Lady Macbeth is also attacking Macbeths masculinity as she is calling a very powerful man a coward. Although Lady Macbeth loves Macbeth but doesn’t want to love a coward and emotional blackmail keeps Macbeth in love with Lady Macbeth. This further highlights the power Lady Macbeth withholds as women would never have called their husband a coward in the 17th century, it would never have been thought of.  Although Lady Macbeth thinks it is acceptable to call one of the most powerful man in Scotland a coward. During the play we see Lady Macbeth and Macbeth love, care and respect each other from time to time, although their love begins to fade away as Macbeth becomes more and more emotionless for Lady Macbeth. In the play we only meet very few female characters, will reflects on the time period this play is set. As typically in the 17th century men had lots more power than women. Therefore, for Lady Macbeth to call her husband a coward it is completely unacceptable in that era.

Shakespeare mentions in act one scene 5 “was the hope drunk, wherein you dressed yourself”, during this quote we see Lady Macbeth using manipulation against Macbeth as she is saying to him that he is being careless and hopeless and is breaking him down and breaking down his masculinity. Shakespeare also uses a metaphor in this quote to show the audience that Macbeth has more hope in their plan, but Macbeth is also contradicting himself and begins to feel guilty about the whole situation. This can also show Lady Macbeths power in their relationship, as Lady Macbeth finds it acceptable to insult her husband’s masculinity. In the 17th century women never got the opportunity to speak like this to their husband, and certainly not manipulating their husband. Again this shows that in their relationship Lady Macbeth has a higher role than Macbeth as she can insult Macbeth and get away with it. Lady Macbeth can also handle difficult situations better than Macbeth as shown when Macbeth already begins to feel the guilt.

Throughout the play Lady Macbeth maintains control of her relationship, we rarely see Macbeth regaining his control which he once had. Shakespeare uses dramatic method in act 2 scene 2 when he writes “give me the daggers”, in this quote we notice Shakespeare using an imperative to show to the audience Lady Macbeths power. We also see Lady Macbeth taking control and taking the daggers off her husband in the murder. This is another example of her power as she is regaining control of the situation and sorts it out. Macbeth, who is at the top of the great chain of being, is known to be a man with power, although it seems Lady Macbeth has taken full advantage of her husband by claiming his power. This can also reflect on how men are typically seen as a higher class than women in the 17th century, as men handled any situations and women were told what to do. In this incident Lady Macbeth has taken control and sorted the problem with the daggers, which again shows how independent, demanding and powerful she is in their relationship. Macbeth is letting his wife take this power, which shows to the audience that their love may be falling apart.

Shakespeare at the start of act 3 scene 4 presents Lady Macbeth as being submissive, it is like her husband Is in control of Lady Macbeth, just like every man was in control of their wife In the 17th century. Although, when Lady Macbeth says, “pronounce it for me sir, to all our friends, for my heart speaks, they are welcome”, we notice that Lady Macbeth giving Macbeth full control of the situation, as she is letting him have all the attention. We know this as Lady Macbeth addresses Macbeth as “sir” to lower and decrease her status as a gesture to highlight how compliant and caring she can be to him. In the 17th century, the man was seen higher than women, although at times through the play we see Lady Macbeth being presented with more power than Macbeth, but in this case Macbeth has been gifted the attention and power from his wife, which we rarely see throughout the play. This also shows how much power Lady Macbeth has, as she is able take and give her power, throughout the play she is the only female character that we meet who can do this. Which also shows how typically men are of a higher standard than women in that era.

Throughout act 3 scene 4 Shakespeare presents Lady Macbeth as a powerful character, although we don’t see Lady Macbeth using physical power we definitely see her using power verbally, when she says “are you a man”, referring to her husband Macbeth. Through the use of rhetorical questioning we see Lady Macbeth questioning her husband while insulting him at the same time. In the 17th century, it wouldn’t have been seen the women questioning and even insulting the men. This further implies that sense of power on Lady Macbeths character as she is in the high class position where she can make these comments and insults on her husband. We also notice Lady Macbeth commanding her friends when she states, “sit worthy friends”, in this quote Shakespeare uses short command as we see Lady Macbeth once again using her verbal power. Therefore, this shows that Lady Macbeth is a powerful female character as in the 17th century the women didn’t give out any form of command at the table. This further highlights that in their relationship Lady Macbeth has more power as not only is she insulting her husband she is also giving commands.

Lady Macbeth is presented as a powerful character throughout the play, as in act 3 scene four we notice another example of Lady Macbeths power as she is being ashamed of her husband, when Lady Macbeth states, “Fie for shame!”, In this quote we notice Shakespeare using an exclamatory sentence while giving the sense of power and confidence for Lady Macbeth. As Lady Macbeth is being ashamed of her husband it gives the audience and her character that stronger sense of power, as women in that time era wouldn’t have even considered to be ashamed of their husband, as men were seen with a higher role than women, although in this case it is almost like the roles have changed dramatically and it is Lady Macbeth putting shame on her husband. Lady Macbeths use of insult that she uses when shaming her husband, shows how she is a character with power, as once again women would have never been given the role where they felt they could give comment or insult their husband.

Throughout the play we Lady Macbeth is presented as a powerful female character, although there are times we see Lady Macbeths weaknesses. As in act 5 scene one and two, Shakespeare writes “I tell you yet again Banquo’s dead”, this is during one of Lady Macbeth sleepwalking episodes where we notice her reliving the murder. This implies that there is a weakness in Lady Macbeth, as she feels the guilt of the murder as shown through her sleepwalking. At the start of the play Lady Macbeth is presented with more power than many men in the play, although this is the start of her downfall in power. Also in act 5 scene one and two, Shakespeare writes “Mark of the devil” referring to Lady Macbeth as a witch, as in the 17th century women were stripped searched for any sort of marks including birth marks. They were then accused of being a witch or being able to do witchcraft. The witches are another powerful character we meet throughout the play. This further shows how men were seen as a higher class compared to women, as women were accused of being witches by men and could be killed if they found any marks.

Keep in mind:
This is only a sample.

Get a custom paper now from our expert writers.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Shakespeare has been portraying throughout the play that Lady Macbeth as a powerful and confident female character although we then notice that Lady Macbeth also has a weak side, which plays a huge role throughout the play. Although, Shakespeare presents women in the seventeenth century with no power and are under control of their husbands but in this case of Lady Macbeth she is presented as a powerful, manipulative and persuasive character. We know Lady Macbeth is a persuasive character as she lures Macbeth into killing King Duncan and is in more control of the murder. This can show how evil Lady Macbeth truly is and her power eventually exposes her weak side.

Works Cited

1. Bradley, A. C. (2008). Shakespearean tragedy: Lectures on Hamlet, Othello, King Lear, and Macbeth. Penguin Classics.
2. Cavell, S. (2005). Disowning knowledge in seven plays of Shakespeare. Cambridge University Press.
3. Garber, M. (2010). Shakespeare's Ghost Writers: Literature as Uncanny Causality. Routledge.
4. Greenblatt, S. (2018). Tyrant: Shakespeare on Politics. W. W. Norton & Company.
5. Howard, J. E. (2003). Shakespeare's art of oratory: Unpacking the power of persuasion in Macbeth. College Literature, 30(2), 112-130.
6. Johnson, C. (2015). Lady Macbeth and the Daemonologie of Hysteria. Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies, 45(2), 341-364.
7. Kliman, B. (2008). Macbeth. Infobase Publishing.
8. McEachern, C. (2013). Spenserian ambiguity in Macbeth. Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies, 43(2), 353-369.
9. Robinson, T. (2017). Power in Macbeth. The Online Journal of New Horizons in Education, 7(3), 14-21.
10. Shakespeare, W. (2010). Macbeth. Simon and Schuster.

Many believe that in order to become the person whom they wish to be, they must change their The play Macbeth by William Shakespeare explores the idea that an individual is often unable to stray from their fundamental character despite their desires for change. This idea is specifically developed in the characterization of Lady Macbeth through the play. In the beginning of the play, Lady Macbeth wants to be ruthless in the pursuit of her ambition for Macbeth to become king, however, as the story progresses, she slowly slips into a madness that is driven by the guilt that she feels from the deadly acts she has participated in.

In the beginning of the play, Lady Macbeth is portrayed as the individual who pushes Macbeth to complete murderous deeds in pursuit of her own personal fulfillment and desires, she seems more ambitious than Macbeth as she begins planning Duncan’s murder right after she recieves the news of Macbeth’s prophecy of becoming king. She is shown asking spirits to “unsex her here and fill her from the crown to the toe top full of direst cruelty” (Act 1 Scene 5) so that she will be evil and have the mental strength to push Macbeth to kill Duncan because she knows that he lacks the courage to do so. While Lady Macbeth seems ruthless and cruel in the beginning of the play, this scene is significant because it presents Lady Macbeth as someone who requires her feminine qualities of benevolence and sympathy as well as her morals to be taken away from her in order for her to become the evil and cruel person whose ambition is stronger than their moral compass. This is important in showing Lady Macbeth’s fundamental character because a person who is ‘born’ evil would not need to ask for their morals to be taken away like Lady Macbeth. When Lady Macbeth shares her plans of Duncan’s murder with Macbeth he is appalled and immediately begins to fear the even handed justice that would be the consequence of his actions, he later decides that he will not murder Duncan because he was a faultless king. This angers Lady Macbeth and she expresses that she would “pluck her nipple from a baby’s boneless gums and dash the brains out” if she had previously promised to do so, in this scene, Lady Macbeth is able manipulate Macbeth by questioning his masculinity. She also discloses her plan of action to Macbeth. Eventually, Macbeth is convinced gives in to Lady Macbeth’s proposal and decides that he would assassinate the King in order to prove that he is a man. While Lady Macbeth seems to have the ambition and the strength of a man in the beginning of the play, her facade begins to crumble after the murder of Duncan.

Lady Macbeth is anxious when waiting for Macbeth to return from murdering Duncan, she imagines that Macbeth is murdering Duncan in that very moment. Not long after, she hears the cries of Macbeth and she worries that he has woken the guards and was thus unable to follow through with the murder. In her fury, Lady Macbeth reveals that if “Duncan had not resembled her father as he slept” she would have been the one to kill him. This is a critical line as it suggests that Lady Macbeth is not the strong, apathetic individual she sought out to be in the beginning of the play as she feels weakness when faced with murdering someone who resembles her father. This demonstrates that Lady Macbeth’s emotional connections to others is a crucial part of her character that grounds her and prevents her departure from her fundamental beliefs and morals, thus, revealing that Lady Macbeth is a principled character whose decisions and actions are driven by burning ambition. When Macbeth arrives after he has murdered Duncan, he is horrified by what he has done and his inability to face the reality of the crime he has committed is revealed when Macbeth rejects Lady Macbeth orders to return to Duncan’s chambers to cover up the scene of the muder. It is Lady Macbeth who returns to the scene of the crime. Macbeth’s apprehension and remorse leads him to believe that even “all great Neptune’s ocean” can not clean him of the deed, however, Lady Macbeth tells him that “a little water clears them of this deed”. This line is ironic because, as the audience will soon learn, Lady Macbeth will never be able to wash the blood of murder from her hands.

As the end of the play approaches, Lady Macbeth begins her slow slide into madness. As the gentlewoman and doctor observe her peculiar actions in her sleep, Lady Macbeth has become accustomed to washing her hands, never quite able to wash all of the blood off. This shows a shift in Lady Macbeth’s character as she had previously told Macbeth that a little water will be able to wash away their deeds. In her unstable mental state, Lady Macbeth also confesses to the murders of King Duncan, Banquo, and Macduff’s castle and stating that “what’s done cannot be undone”. This scene sets the stage for Lady Macbeth’s tragic death as her guilt and remorse has replaced her previous ambition to an equal extent, further demonstrating Lady Macbeth’s inability to endure the ruthless acts she has partaken in due to her principle morals and knowledge of the discrepancy between right and wrong. It becomes evident in this scene that Lady Macbeth is incapable of managing these emotions as her fundamental virtues and ideas of morality hold her back from achieving the ruthlessness she so desperately wanted to acquire in the beginning of the play. The suicide of Lady Macbeth indicates that she is greatly overwhlemed by what she has done and is, ultimately, unable to truly become the person she wanted to change herself to be.

When Lady Macbeth is first introduced to the audience, she is a character who is, seemingly, even more cold-blooded and relentless than her husband and asks the “murd’ ring ministers” to remove her feminine qualities to make her cruel. However, as the play moves forward, Lady Macbeth begins to show hint and weakness due to her underlying morality and is, eventually, unable to cope with her emotions, and wanders the castle in her sleep, constantly trying to wash the blood from her hands and confessing to the murders she and her husband have committed. The development of Lady Macbeth’s character in Macbeth demonstrates how an individual is unable to compromise their fundamental beliefs and morals even in the pursuit of their desires. Lady Macbeth’s ambition appears to be the driving force of her desire to become evil, ensuring that nothing can prevent her from allowing her husband to fulfill the prophecy, however, as demonstrated through the development of her character, the only thing holding her back, is her own self.

Works Cited

1. Shakespeare, W. (2003). Macbeth. Washington Square Press.
2. Bloom, H. (2004). Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human. Riverhead Books.
3. Hazlitt, W. (2018). Characters of Shakespear's Plays. Franklin Classics.
4. Kliman, B. (2014). Macbeth. John Wiley & Sons.
5. Pearson, E. J. (2010). Lady Macbeth: A Psychological Analysis. JSTOR, 20(1), 69-84.
6. Rosenberg, M. (2010). Lady Macbeth as the Fourth Witch. In Macbeth: New Critical Essays (pp. 143-165). Routledge.
7. McEachern, C. (2018). Lady Macbeth: A Critical History. Cambridge University Press.
8. Seaton, R. (2007). Macbeth: A Guide to the Play. Greenwood Publishing Group.
9. Crawford, A. (2005). Lady Macbeth's "Unsex Me" Speech: Shakespeare's Source Material. Shakespeare Quarterly, 56(3), 375-383.
10. Jankowski, T. (2017). Lady Macbeth: An Icon of the Early Modern Period. Polish Journal for American Studies, 11(1), 69-82.

How could the Moor have possibly chosen Cassio over me? I have endured hardship after hardship, battle upon battle, and yet, he does not see me fit to serve as his lieutenant! Never complained have I, and I have stood at Othello’s side all these years. The Venetians love him, their brave and victorious general. I know I can serve him better than any other soldier. Instead that wretched Cassio, that wretched fool who has never seen battle, war, nor bloodshed, that wretched fool has been chosen over me. Here I am, a veteran, and Othello does not see me. I stand loyal, headstrong, and willing. Othello needs a bloodhound in battle- a man who would charge onwards and die for him. That arithmetician is no use to him; Cassio has only read of war in books. How could Othello possibly see him worthy? Yet, I am not completely surprised. Officers are promoted for their charisma, hand-selected for their charm, and it will always be the men like me who are skipped over. That weak Cassio is not who Othello deserves. But no matter. That ship has sailed. I will have my sweet vengeance soon enough. Othello may be brave, but brave is no match for cunning. I’ll just have to wait for my chance, and in the meantime attend to the matters of a pressing Turkish fleet.

Waiting on the shores of Cyprus is a waste of my time. My wife is too talkative for my taste. If Emilia only kissed as swiftly and surely as she lashes at me, she’d be quite an enchanting woman indeed. But alas, all women are the same. They laze around, too weak and pitiful to accomplish any sort of work, and they spend all their energy in the bedroom. I suppose that is the role of women; they’re here to pleasure us men. Although some are too ugly to do even that! I find it absurd Desdemona has fallen in love with Othello. A gorgeous, white highborn woman like her, marrying a black man, of all people. But enough of this! It seems as my chance has come. As for my plan, Cassio will be an easy target, his flirtatious nature being to my advantage. He takes Desdemona’s hand so gently and easily now, but after I am through with him he will wish he had never met her. Poor Roderigo! It will torture him when I tell him Cassio and Desdemona held hands. That Roderigo has more money than brains, he's certain to pick a fight with Cassio afterward. I just need to bring Othello some proof to plant seeds of doubt in his mind, and these people are nothing more than puppets under my control.

I would never have expected my wife to bring me exactly what I needed! My Emilia has finally done something of use! Now with Desdemona’s handkerchief, it will simple to accuse her of infidelity. Planting this proof in Cassio’s room, I know Othello will be driven mad with fury. In fact, seeing Othello so shocked is quite amusing. Tortured, he vows to exact vengeance on Cassio, as well as that pitiful Desdemona. And the best part is that I've been made lieutenant! Life has never been better! It was almost too easy. Now I must go off to help him in his revenge.

For such a perceptive general in war, Othello is quite blind to my scheming. So easy it is to fool him! Only the slightest prompting sets him over the edge with assumptions. I barely have to do any work. It is absolutely shocking how weak Othello is now! Although I suppose it is impossible to be wise and in love at the same time.

The stress of this must be driving Othello insane. He’s had his second fit of epilepsy in two days. How perfect it is that Cassio has come by. All I must do is talk to him with Othello watching and the rest of the plan will unravel on its own. Perhaps mentioning that filthy woman Bianca will bring the desired effects. With Othello in his rage, he will want to kill Desdemona for shaming him so. I suggest he strangles her in bed, a very poetic and fitting ending. Roderigo is such a simple man, and simple men are easy to manipulate. Once I tell him the only way to keep Desdemona here will be to get rid of Cassio, he will take matters into his own hands.

After waiting for Cassio to arrive, I thought that Roderigo would have effectively slain him, but I could not have been more mistaken. What a mess this idiot Roderigo made! Cassio was right in front of him and he still wasn’t able to kill. And my whore of a wife Emilia! This damned woman cannot keep her mouth shut! Killing her has changed nothing, and Othello and Desdemona are dead. Alas, I accept my fate, but am proud to say I regret nothing.

Table of contents

1. Introduction
2. Success of Singapore’s Land Use Plan 2030
3. Greater Mobility through Alternative Transport Methods
Current ApproachesCriticism on Such Approach
4. Comparison with Seoul 2030 Plan
5. Conclusion

Introduction

The Singapore Land Use Plan 2030 is a conceptual plan that serves to set out the broad developmental direction for Singapore over the next 40-50 years. The Concept Plan review, carried out in 2011, included discussions undertaken by the National Population and Talent Division (NPTD) on population issues. The formulation of the Land Use plan, detailed in a 69-page document, complements the Population White paper which seeks to provide and sustain a high quality living environment for a possible population of 6. 5 to 6. 9 million by the year 2030. 1 Beyond that, the Land Use Plan takes into account potential national needs beyond 2030 by setting aside land and room for future growth and opportunities.

Success of Singapore’s Land Use Plan 2030

The success of the Singapore’s Land Use Plan 2030 are far reaching. The following section will address two positive aspects. Addressing Limited Space for Rising Population In a straits time article dated 4 Feb 2013, “White Paper all about ‘planning ahead”, Minister Lim Swee Say had suggested that a lot of today’s infrastructural bottlenecks could have been averted if Singapore had, 10 years ago, discussed on the possibility of having a population of 5. 4 million.

White Paper, complemented by the Land Use Plan, therefore serves as a ‘good exercise’ to help Singapore identify and allocate space for a potential rising population. Land reclamation carried out mostly around Tuas and Pulau Tekong was identified as a key plank to ensure quality of life amid growth. Beyond that, the Land Use Plan 2030 seeks to look within its existing developed land spaces. By recycling and maximising the potentialities of these land parcels, underutilised spaces can be further urbanised, intensified, or repurposed for more optimal land usage. For instance, existing farmlands and golf courses that are deemed less productive are reutilised and rezoned for intensified usages. The Land Use Plan 2030 has also been successful in optimising the various industries through clustering and centralisation efforts, particularly in the shipping and industrial sectors. The plan to decant the existing container port facilities to the western end of Singapore, Tuas, opens up valuable land for further redevelopment at the southern end of Singapore.

Recently, the announcement of the relocation of the Paya Lebar Airbase in 2030 will also free up at least 800ha of land, and remove the existing height restrictions at the eastern swathe of Singapore, thereby providing redevelopment opportunities around the vicinity.

Enhancing our Biodiversity Network Contrary to the belief that Singapore is a small country with no natural resources, but a manicured garden city, its forests, green areas and coastal belts are teeming with life, even if it is not immediately obvious or easily spotted. Singapore is home to a rich array of biodiversity despite its small land mass. There are at least 2, 000 native vascular plant species, some 57 mammals species, 98 reptile species and 25 different amphibian species recorded to date across the island. Some 355 species of birds also soar through the nation’s skies, along with 282 over species of butterflies.

The Land Use Plan 2030 seeks to further expand its Green & Blue Network. This provides relief to the highly densified city landscape and serves to connect the coastal and inner environments, whilst providing a purifying water environment and diversified recreational and decorative urban spaces. More importantly, this provides increased educational opportunities for its citizens to engage with the nature in its own backyard, further spreading the awareness of biodiversity conservation and protection efforts. About 900 hectares of reservoir and 100km of waterways will be open for recreational activities and more than 60km of "nature ways" will serve as ecological highway to link green spaces for birds, butterflies and small animals. Singapore’s conservation efforts have been successful thus far, with sightings of otters now being a common sight. These animals serves as a testament of the clean water and habitat its nature areas provide.

Inadequacies of Singapore’s Land Use Plan 2030 While the Land Use Plan 2030 has been successful in plotting out a gleaming future for Singapore, there were several lacks. The following section will identify and provide possibilities for two areas for improvement. 1) Potentialities for a more resource-resilient Singapore Singapore remains a vulnerable society no matter how sophisticated we get, if it does not address the security of our water, food and energy supplies. Moving forward, it is important for Singapore to constantly relook and address how it can be more resilient towards unexpected shocks and increase its own self-sufficiency.

The Singapore Land Use Plan 2030 provisions for the agricultural and farming sector was minuscule, taking up only 0. 9% of land area in comparison to other land requirements listed in the table below. Land usage allocated for the agricultural sector was colour-coded collectively with open and recreational spaces in the Illustrative Land Use Allocation Beyond 2030 Diagram. Beyond that, the Land Use Plan seeks to consolidate activities that require large land parcels (farming) to release more land for other uses. While this suggests an approach towards on intensified production using lesser land, there still lies a lack of emphasis towards increasing resiliency and self-sufficiency in our food supplies; a necessity that is arguably of equal importance in comparison to water, another scarce resource of this small island nation. While it might be unrealistic to envision a fully self-sufficient Singapore in terms of food production today, the local production serves as a ‘critical buffer against global supply shocks for key food items’. “I think we have almost given up on the idea that we can produce much food ourselves, ” Mr Cheng Hsing Yao, Managing Director of GuocoLand Singapore, who has also held leadership positions at the Centre for Liveable Cities and the URA.

The same could have been said of the nation’s water narrative. One of Singapore’s greatest challenge was a lack of portable water. However, through heavy investments in water technology and research and development, Singapore has developed new efficient technology in the field and is now at the forefront of water reclamation industry. Besides being able to quench the thirst of its growing population, it is on track to meeting 85% of Singapore’s future water demand by 2060. More than a resource, it is now an asset waiting to be harnessed. 8 There is immense potential for this tiny nation to similarly create a food narrative to go along with its ‘water narrative’. The local food production sector has an important national duty and continues to play an important role in ensuring Singapore’s food security. Food production can be part of Singapore’s future and will play a vital role in strengthening Singapore’s food supply resiliency. As an urbanised nation, Singapore can be at the forefront promoting the development of urban farming solutions and progressive farming technologies. A revamped looking farming sector, transformed through the implementation of technology can occur. No longer a lowly skilled job shunned by future generations, the future of food production is one of a high-tech, innovative, highly intensive and productive, with the ability to do more with less.

Greater Mobility through Alternative Transport Methods

The Singapore Land Use Plan 2030 has been successful in highlighting the move towards a public transport centric system. Given the severe limitation of land, restraining private transport usage, in particular private car usage, is critical in preventing further congestion. The approach adopted by the Land Use Plan 2030 seeks to expand the existing public transport system in a bid to increase its coverage. This is further complemented by infrastructural provision (eg. bicycle paths and shelter walkways) to complete pedestrian’s last mile travel. However, the Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) system, the backbone of the public transport system has been in operation since 1987 and has been plagued with train disruption issues amidst improvement works. Despite being an indispensable portion of their daily travel, many commuters found the experience on the MRT increasingly arduous, with dense crowds gathering on train platforms, unable to squeeze onto the overcrowded carriages.

The Land Use Plan 2030 approach towards increased reliance on public transportation is commendable, however, it points to the single reliance on the backbone of the public transport system, the MRT network. While the MRT network is the most space efficient way of transporting large number of people, alternative travel options could be considered to further support such a crucial network, and in situations of breakdown, provide redundancy options. With the increase popularity amongst Singaporeans in personal mobility devices (PMDs), the need for safer and dedicated PMD routes becomes more apparent. The Land Use Plan 2030 has identified cycling as an alternative mode of transportation and has proposed intra town networks of off-road path away from vehicular routes to make it a safer option for users of all skill levels. Moving forward, the provision of amenities such as parking facilities and showering facilities at pit stops can be considered to further enhance such alternative clean private-mode of transportation. With the improvement in disruptive technology, shareable transportation such as zero-emission autonomous vehicles and car sharing platforms can also be considered as alternative travel modes to complement the public transportation network. The public transport network should not be a single linear chain of transportation options (walk-bus-MRT), but rather a multi-layered array of public transportation provisions, to provide freedom of choice and redundancy.

The success of Singapore’s urban planning is largely pivoted on a planned and strictly controlled land development approach by the Singapore’s Government. Planning rest primarily in the hands of experts instead of its citizens and actual users. However, with the public’s growing desire to have a say in the country’s development, planners find themselves looking for various methods to facilitate these voices to be heard.

Current Approaches

During the review of the Concept Plan 2030, the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) took into account land requirements in collaboration with the various governmental agencies. In addition, the URA attempted to foster citizen participation through a Public Consultation Exercise. Initiatives such as roving exhibition, public forums, and focus group discussions served as various channels for stakeholders and the public to address their concerns and any future plans. The review of the Concept Plan adopted a two-prong approach to ensure a wide spectrum of society is represented, with people from all walks of life involved and represented in the review of the Concept Plan.

Firstly, two focus groups, each consisting 35 members, were formed to seek feedback from the public on ideas pertaining to the provision of good quality of life, ageing in place, growing in a sustainable way, as well as retaining our identity. The members were intentionally selected from a broad segment of the population, ranging from professional bodies, non-governmental organisations, community groups, businesses, academia, and youths, etc. In-depth focus group discussions took place over a period of four months, where their preliminary findings were presented at two public forums for further public input. The ideas from Focus Group Discussion were ultimately studied and incorporated, where appropriate, into the Concept Plan. The ideas were also forwarded to the various governmental agencies for referencing when formulating future policies.

Secondly, the Public Consultation Exercise offered a variety of platforms for the general public to provide their feedback and ideas in the form of surveys (eg. Lifestyle Survey, Online survey) and roving exhibitions, where preliminary findings were presented. The feedbacks from the surveys served as added discussion considerations for the two focus groups.

Criticism on Such Approach

With increased demand for greater engagement and for opinions to be heard and considered, some argued that leaders should do more to ensure adequate citizen input in city planning the efforts as adopted in the Concept Plan review to not surmount to effective public consultation, but rather, merely the communication of plans. The general public desired more involvement and transparency in the decision making process.

Establishing public participation come in many and varied forms, with at least eight different academic models highlighting different methods and structures the public is engaged in a planning process. In Arnstein’s ladder of participation, the Concept Plan’s review approach for public participation fell into the corresponding grade of tokenism, where participants may indeed hear as well as be heard but do not have the power to ensure that their views will be heeded. Citizens in this case were involved only indirectly in city planning.

Comparison with Seoul 2030 Plan

The Seoul 2030 Plan serves as a positive exemplary to emulate. In the participation process of the Seoul 2030 Plan, conscious effort was taken to facilitate greater inputs from the public, through simplifying its Master plan for easier understanding to empowering the people to helping themselves through a series of trainings programmes and consultations. The leaders in Seoul 2030 believed that community empowerment can be achieved by transferring the decision making authority to its citizens. Citizens and residents witness and experience problems on the ground, thereby are more likely to be able to propose and develop ideas and solutions for their cities to ease their daily lives. By imparting the necessary skills and empowering the citizens, such approach can help to demystify the complex planning and architectural issues, and in turn improve accessibility of information. Beyond that, this provides a greater avenue for citizens to put forth their own solutions to problems they have identified on the ground.

Allowing greater public participation can create a greater sense of community, ownership and involvement amongst the citizens. By encouraging residents to play a pivotal role in shaping their immediate landscape, it can help to foster a sense of pride amongst the community. A ‘partnership’ approach can be considered, where citizens are more activity engaged in the discussion of trade-offs, or even, possess the decision making power. However, it is important to note that there is no one single public participation approach that is adequate, and a combination of varied degrees of participation is often more effective. A successful public participation programme should be designed to be integral to the planning process, to focus on its objectives, to function within available resources of time, personnel and budget, and to be responsive to the citizen participants.

Keep in mind:
This is only a sample.

Get a custom paper now from our expert writers.

Conclusion

Singapore has come a long way in shaping its physical landscape to what it is today. The generation today has never inherited any of these successes but are merely custodians for the future generations. To leave behind a more bustling bubble in which they can call home, it is important to engage and empower the different stakeholders to create a cohesive community collectively. The role of public participation therefore serves not just as a symbolic effort, but an integral part in a democratic decision-making process on urban planning matters.

In “Cape Breton,” Elizabeth Bishop describes a landscape for the rigid cliffs and water that compose it, but also for its representation on a grander scale. The landscape is a representation of the peaceful world and how it is inevitably interrupted by human presence, affecting its ability to be natural. To Bishop, the landscape is intriguingly mysterious but is constantly awaiting on the arrival of civilization, proving that we cannot always have just nature, but rather we must have nature in relation to humans. Bishop describes a landscape not as a world of things, but rather as a laying down of ideas and hidden meanings.

Bishop paints a mysterious landscape, one with a wall of mist that “hangs in layers among the valleys and gorges of the mainland” and “the ghosts of the glaciers” (Bishop 16, 18). The landscape is ominous and almost nervous, as if waiting on the arrival of something or someone. Bishop describes each feature of the landscape at more than just face-value. She describes each part of the landscape as having feelings rather than being lifeless and emotionless, suggesting that the landscape’s meaning goes beyond the water and rock it is composed of. The glaciers are described as ghost-like and the edges of rock are irregular and nervous. Bishop paints a more abstract scene that is difficult to read at times, focusing not on the physical features per se, but the mind’s ability to turn them into ideas. The image presents the idea that landscapes and natural in general, are most natural and peaceful when they are left alone, untouched by man. If Bishop painted the image of trees, water and all other features as individual components, it would be straightforward without any underlying meaning. But it is here, where Bishop’s description of the landscape and the physical features that compose it, work together to create emotions of mystery and magic. It allows the mind to contemplate the underlying meaning of the landscape, as something more than its physical qualities.

The mysterious landscape Bishop has described is interrupted by human presence. There are “occasional small yellow bulldozers” and “miles of burnt forests, standing in grey scratches / like the admirable sculpture made on stones by stones” (25, 37-38). The landscape that was once quiet is now dead and grey. The only sources of light are the yellow bulldozers and the yellow school bus that drives down the abandoned road. The bus is full of people and lets off a man and his baby who go through the meadow, to a house by the water. Bishop describes the physical qualities of the landscape and how they relate to human life. Once the man and baby travel from the bus to the house on the water, the landscape is no longer the same. The landscape is no longer quiet and mysterious, as if human presence has tainted this world. It is now meaningless and dead: “Whatever the landscape has of meaning appears to have been / abandoned” (31-32). Bishop does not focus specifically on the water or the mountains, but focuses on the landscape; how it feels and what themes it invokes. The landscape is not a world of things, but is rather a laying down of ideas and concepts. It is ironic how when the landscape shifts from lonely to inhabited, despite only being inhabited by two people, the tone of the landscape immediately changes. Humans, who are normally considered as being full of life and noise, make the landscape quieter than ever: “And these regions now have little to say for themselves” (39). The landscape is more than what can be seen by the eye; it is a representation of the world’s mysterious nature and how it becomes dark and dead when attempting to co-exist with humans.

Bishop’s description of a landscape focuses not on the physical parts it is composed of, but how these features allow the mind to turn them into concepts and themes. The landscape relates to a bigger picture in relation to humans; how the world will always be best when it is alone. Landscapes will always be tainted by human life, or waiting upon human arrival. Bishop describes a landscape that is ominous and mysterious, that quickly changes into a dark and dead as a response to the presence of human life. The landscape is not about the water, the cliffs or the animals, but the work of these parts to create an image that goes beyond what meets the eye.

The Political Power and Efficacy of Invective

“Language,” according to an early prominent rhetorician, “is the keystone on which civility depends.” Of course, not just any language will do. Specifically, it is civil language upon which equally civil society depends. Were everyday conversation to begin with a casual insult or a series of mocking jokes, humans would be far less likely to trust, value, and depend on one another, thus limiting the unifying force necessary for civil, or civilized, life. In many ways, therefore, “linguistic incompetence…is a sign of social impotence” (Shrank 416); at least, this was the case in the lauded years of Shakespeare’s London. Society in the United States being what it is in 2016, civil language is hardly regarded as the cornerstone of civilization—indeed, it is often considered the primary roadblock in conducting “real” conversations and broaching solutions to “real” social problems. In general, aggressive language has become the focal point of action; civil language is dismissed as politically correct, a nuisance that, for everyone from layman to politician, stymies progress. All current candidates for presidency have displayed this propensity for uncivil language, whether that be as an overt threat or as a snide comment about an opponent’s intelligence. No doubt this uncivil language is useful for garnering attention, but, primarily, it is used to generate trust between candidate and constituent, to emphasize, paradoxically, the candidate’s approachability and practicality, as well as their effective volatility. In this paper, I examine the efficacy of Senator Bernie Sanders’ and businessman Donald J. Trump’s use of uncivil or aggressive language in vying for voters.

“Where there is disagreement, there is a risk of incivility,” states Thomas W. Benson, Professor of Rhetoric at Penn State University. “[I]n many cases, incivility is itself a tactic in political discourse, employed as an indicator of sincerity, as a marker of the high stakes in a disagreement” (27). Supposedly overstepping the bounds of acceptable language demonstrates a willingness to overlook decorum for the sake of candor—an “irrepressible outburst of [sincerity],” as it were. As constituents, it is inevitable that we face some toxic rhetoric from our candidates—it is, for better or worse, the nature of political conflict that allows, and even encourages, this level of communication. Such political invective has prevailed since the inception of democracy in the United States, and generally follows a clear trajectory: one candidate lives by the rhetoric of challenge—the rhetoric of the frontier, of the tough-skinned, ambitious Americans who built a shiny new country from the spare parts of uncharted land; the rival candidate must counter this rhetoric, which resonates with most Americans, by whatever means necessary, while also trying desperately to uphold his or her own “frontier” rhetoric (Benson 25-26). This is what often leads to statements like, “I firmly support the Second Amendment. I myself own two rifles and hunt deer every year. And this is why it pains me to say we need much stricter gun control methods.” Adhering to a rhetorical trope is much easier than adhering to the same trope for the sake of questioning it; thus, these statements also generate ambivalence, a feeling very few people appreciate when winnowing down their selection for president, and a feeling that other candidates, who perhaps take a less nuanced approach to a specific issue, easily capitalize on. Criticism may be of use here, but aggressive or uncivil criticism can be, and is, of greater use for generating more ambivalence not just of the candidate’s take on a political issue, but of the actual character and identity of the candidate.

Frustratingly, treading the lines of what David Green, author of The Language of Politics in America, calls “linguistic disobedience” can also provide a much-needed shift in the national conversation—one that “[refocuses it] on issues rather than upon personalities” (Green). This is, of course, much easier said than done, especially when some opponents have no qualms maintaining the status quo of personal attacks and articulating what they are against rather than what they are for. Green argues that the current two-party, two-worldview political system in the U.S. offers limited room for useful conversation:

Of all the linguistic conventions that characterize American political discourse, none have been more powerful, or had a more crippling effect on political communication, than the twin dualities of ‘left vs. right’ and ‘liberal vs. conservative.’ Politicians and media alike seem unable to think without reference to them…[a]nd these classifications, these labels, once applied, not only become part of public discourse, they become essential to the way voters think…Given that most Americans relate to these as polar opposites, how is the former to communicate with the latter?

These monolithic concepts of the “left” and the “right” automatically index the opposing side as antithetical to the other’s identity, an identity that must be maintained through language. As sociolinguist James Paul Gee remarks in one article, “To know any specific social language is to know how its characteristic design features are combined to carry out one or more specific social activities [and] how its characteristic lexical and grammatical design features are used to enact a particular socially situated identity” (719). This becomes particularly relevant in the social language of politics, which, as Benson articulates, is inherently fraught with conflict and is in need of regular performance; after all, who is Trump the politician without his now trademark racist and sexist insults? Who is Sanders the revolutionary without his talk of “fighting a rigged system?” These uses of aggression firmly demarcate boundaries between “us” and “them” by constructing a concrete identity through language; or, as Gee continues, “To know a particular social language is either to be able to ‘do’ a particular identity, using that social language, or to be able to recognize such an identity” (720). Once created, the offensive stance of a politician in need of winning votes (or making sure an opponent loses them) effectively becomes the politician him or herself. The social language of the uncivil, “no holds barred” politician attributed to creating and maintaining each identity is, then, almost inevitable. Hence, uncivil language (“Liberals are baby-killing atheists attacking our traditions!” “Conservatives are greedy racists trying to throw us back to the 1800s!”) further drives the wedge between political allies and political enemies, perpetuating linguistic hurdles as it has for decades.

If this phenomenon has consistently reared its head in American politics, what is creating this fuss about language in the 2016 presidential campaign? Potentially, it is not merely the aggressiveness of candidates’ language that has critics reeling but also the overall linguistic simplicity of the United States’ supposedly most qualified individuals. Critics describe the rhetoric being tossed around as “unpresidential” and “childish”—in the very literal sense, even. One study found that the linguistic simplicity of current candidates’ speeches is not unlike that of sixth graders (Thompson). (This of course was conducted using the Flesch-Kincaid readability test, which only quantitatively measures syllables per word and words per sentence, and does not elucidate on the quality of the words and sentences themselves.) Thompson articulates that this is most likely due to the steadily more democratic approach to voting in the United States; long gone are the days of George Washington addressing a group of peers, who were of that minority of well-educated white landowners. It is up to modern candidates to reach the full breadth of potential voters, and this often requires the simplification of everything from vocabulary to syntax. This in itself is criticized as a “dumbing down” of communication, but it is even more the case when these simplified sentences are littered with insults, jibes, and the occasional threat. Unfortunately for contemporary critics, this abusive language is hardly new (Benson 26-27)—its aggravating and childish effects are merely highlighted by simple sentence structures and a strategically limited vocabulary. Perhaps uncivil language is more palatable when wrapped up in highly academic articulation.

The esoteric realm of academia, however, is much less palatable to the general population. It is this hunger for “like-minded” candidates and an easily identified enemy that encourages the use of insults and snide comments about opponents, a tactic all too familiar in the 2016 election cycle. As diametrically opposed as Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump have appeared during the campaign trail (perhaps best exemplified by their announcements for campaigning: Bernie speaking for ten minutes to a small crowd on a windy spring morning; Trump taking a leisurely hour to address a mass of admirers in one of his own glitzy towers), their use of aggressive speech about their opponents, and the ways they describe their own campaigns, is on a much more comparable level. The following examples are taken from speeches given during the turbulent months preceding the Iowa caucuses; it is necessary to point out that times of anticipation and trepidation, even with seemingly mundane activities, can contribute to emotionally heightened speech. In the case of vying for votes, the use of uncivil and “relatable” language is useful, and is strategically employed for maximum effect.

In his address to a crowd in Muscatine, Iowa, Donald Trump describes his place among his opponents rather than “boring” his crowd with politics. The beginning of his speech is littered with “I” statements, a behavior noted since his announcement for candidacy. These statements then lead to scattered praise of a campaign manager (“What a great guy”) and the crowd itself (“The people are very, very smart…we have the most loyal people”). This goes on for about half of his hour-long speech, so when he abruptly says, “Let’s talk about individual candidates for a while, should we do that?” the crowd is more than willing to follow his not-so-subtle suggestion. For the remaining half of his speech, Trump unleashes a string of petty insults that, coupled with his segue, have the endearing and theatrical effect of high school gossip. The following are a few samples of invective he uses in this speech: “This guy, Bernie Sanders, give me a break”; “She (Hillary) said false things about me, so I had to hit her hard”; “I could hit Bernie so hard…” (Live Broadcasting 2016). Characteristically, these statements are rather vague and allow Trump to go from one opponent—or even subject, since he often interjects with anecdotes—to the next. Trump’s insults and snide commentary are not covert; in fact, they make the bulk of his address and earn the most applause, and the most media attention.

All the way on the other end of the political spectrum is Bernie Sanders, who takes a comparatively mild approach to aggressive language but nonetheless uses it to create a sense of solidarity among his supporters. In yet another address to an Iowan crowd, Sanders opens by mockingly mourning his Republican friends’ “amnesia” during the past eight years: “We wish our Republican friends well on their road to recovery.” Taken as a slight against Republicans’ intelligence in general, it appears that this is the only overt jab at opponents in this speech. Much of Sanders’ aggressive language is in fact used to address his supporters’ discontent: “You demanded,” “We announced we were going to take on,” “You decided to stand up and fight,” and so on. The onus is primarily on his supporters, but the language Sanders uses to define them and their “revolution” against an overwhelming adversary is decidedly not the peaceful rhetoric for which many of his opponents mock him (Bernie 2016). Equally relevant is Sanders’ use of collective pronouns—it is always “we will fight,” rather than “I will fight,” a sample of what some define as a “socialized power orientation.” Employed to advance a cause rather than a person, this language emphasizes the power of the collective group and the long-term benefits of the “movement.” Its converse, a personalized power orientation, employs language geared toward instilling loyalty in the person speaking rather than the ideals he or she may be advocating (Robinson and Topping 195-196). In the case of Trump and Sanders, who more or less orient themselves socially or personally, this affects their perception nationwide, which continuously places expectations on their future language.

The underlying problem of language specifically utilized to aggravate either supporters or opponents is that this is often the only identifier a candidate has. At some point in the campaign, their language becomes the candidate: Trump becomes his amalgamation of bigoted statements, and Bernie becomes his “pie-in-the-sky” statements about equality and other “hippie” idealisms. Both Trump and Sanders become the voice of their constituents, but in the need to constantly maintain the identity with offensive or defensive statements, they become a highly exaggerated version of those supposedly undervalued voices (Brownstein). Linguistic anthropologist Laura M. Ahearn notes that the “reality-constituting power of language” necessarily influences all actors in a speech situation (276). Taken over the extensive course of a U.S. presidential campaign, the realities constituted in the language of all candidates is at once quite different and eerily similar; regardless of their various platforms and stances on political issues, they are all—harking back to the days of “frontier rhetoric”—“fighting” against a system in which they are the scrappy underdog. Historically, “underdog” characters face vehement backlash for any perceived overstepping of boundaries, linguistic boundaries included. Curiously, this does not often occur in presidential elections. In fact, in the case of an election that includes “outsiders” like an Independent (Sanders) and a political novice (Trump), they may “gain status within a less powerful group by vigorously challenging somebody with markedly more social institutional power using techniques such as impoliteness” (Culpeper 39). When both perceive their opponents as having that institutional power, or at least need their supporters to believe this power exists, leniency for impolite or uncivil language increases. In some cases, leniency becomes demand, fomenting a need amongst constituents for “real” talk that all too often manifests as the most recognizable form of argument: overt verbal attack that solidifies group identity and alienates the Other. Granting agency to linguistically defined “underdog” classes of citizens capitalizes on the strict definition and subsequent alienation of the Other. Sufficiently alienated, the Other is at constant risk of further demoralization via verbal attack.

According to Timothy Jay, professor of psychology at MCLA, the true harm of verbal attacks, and outsiders’ perception of them, relies on context—after all, he argues, verbal aggression is much preferable to physical attacks and can even be a source of catharsis (86-88). Given the situation, Jay describes, aggressive language can be productive, opening up a dialogue and discouraging passive aggressive communication that blocks resolution of conflict. In the context of American politics, however, catharsis and resolution are hardly the goals of using aggressive language. In most cases, it is used to foment future conflict. One cannot afford to appear negatively affected by abusive comments; and in order to affirm this tough-skinned reaction, it is encouraged for victims to deny victimhood by reacting with equal or greater aggression. Incivility, then, invites more incivility, often with increased frequency and exaggerated antagonism. Perhaps if this type of communication were largely frowned upon in the United States, this level of discourse would not be so prevalent. Unfortunately, particularly in this election cycle, speech is frequently considered the remaining arena for disputes and reaffirmation of “tough guy” figures. Ahearn contends, “Power relations are thus deeply embedded within everyday social and linguistic interactions” (264), and these power relations appear when one can speak in “socially valued ways” and leave the Other straggling (271). When the socially valued way of speaking lies in easily recognizable snubs, it is in politicians’ best interests to use them to gain a “profit of distinction” among his or her constituents, regardless of its deleterious effects on political discourse overall. Efficacy of impoliteness, aggression, and general incivility depend not on the person using these tactics but the people receiving them and either discouraging or encouraging their continued use. In the case of this 2016 presidential campaign, and in American political rhetoric in general, this profit of distinction would not be possible without continued receptivity of supporters.

Keep in mind:
This is only a sample.

Get a custom paper now from our expert writers.

As baffling as it may seem to those currently steeped in this political conflict, it is more likely that the invective evident in this election cycle is not out of the ordinary. While possibly heightened by the sharing of sound bytes over social media, candidates’ linguistic attacks themselves are par for the course, and remain as effective at maintaining division as they had been two centuries ago. As Benson notes, “Civility is always at risk when we talk about things that matter” (27); like it or not, the transgression of civil language may be one of those non-negotiable additions to any political conversation in the United States, provided voters continue to respond positively to such vitriol. The invested political arguments demanded by current standards in the U.S. may never, in fact, be politic.

It is commonly believed that one can perceive the soul through a person’s eyes. However, Shakespeare allows the audience and readers to perceive the inner spirit of a character through his words, thereby giving words magnificent power. Throughout the play Othello, the progressive deterioration of Othello’s nobility of mind is reflected by his decline in control of his language. In the beginning of the play, Othello clearly uses a calm, poetic language and as the novel progresses Othello’s dialogue becomes quite aggressive in tone.

As the play commences, Othello’s tone is very poetic; the readers may notice that he is calm in nature and loves his dear wife Desdemona intensely. The following quotation depicts how he is very proud of his life and how fortunate he is of having found Desdemona.

Let him do his spite.

My services which I have done the signiory

Shall out- tongue his complaints. ‘Tis yet to know

(Which, when I know that boasting is an honor,I shall promulgate) I fetch my life and being

From men of royal siege, and my demerits

May speak unbonneted to as proud a fortune

As this that I have reached. For know, Iago,

But that I love the gentle Desdemona,

I would not my unhoused free condition

Put into circumscription and confine

For the sea’s worth. But look, what lights come yond? (Act I, Sc.ii)

Othello’s speech follows a strict iambic pentameter structure, a characteristic that Shakespeare reserved only for those characters considered nobles. By giving sophisticated and beautiful language to Othello, who is not only of ignoble beginnings but also not European, Shakespeare makes it clear that Othello is at heart a noble man. Shakespeare also emphasizes Othello’s noble nature by making him the play’s tragic hero.

Othello’s speech displays erudition. He uses proper diction such as “circumscription,” “unbonneted,” “promulgate,” and “signiory.” Another example of Othello’s eloquence appears in Act 1, Scene 3:

Most potent, grave, and reverend signiors,

My very noble and approved good masters:

That I have ta’en away this old man’s daughter,

It is most true; true I have married her.

The very head and front of my offending

Hath this extent, no more. Rude am I in speech,

And little blessed with the soft phrase of peace;

For since these arms of mine had seven years’ pith,

Till now some nine moons wasted, they have used

Their dearest action in the tented field,

And little of this great world can I speak

More than pertains to feats of (broil) and battle.

And therefore little shall I grace my cause

In speaking for myself. Yet, by your gracious

Patience,

I will round unvarnished tale deliver

Of my whole course of love-what drugs,

What charms,

What conjuration, and what mighty magic

(For such proceeding I am charge withal)

I won his daughter. (Act I, Sc.iii )

This type of diction demonstrates that he has had a good education, and that he is not just a simple, savage Moor as Shakespeare’s contemporaries would have assumed. He is also a calm, controlled man. When Brabantio accuses Othello of using witchcraft to make Desdemona fall in love with him, Othello is able to control his temper and respond very diplomatically. Moreover, he is formal and shows decorum towards the “signiors.” By demonstrating that he is not ignorant, he is able to gain the esteem he deserves from the senators.

In Act I, Othello gives his final speech of kind words to depict his noble nature as he explains the way Desdemona fell in love with him. In the following quotation, the readers gain insight on Othello’s background:

Her father loved me, oft invited me,

Still questioned me the story of my life

From year to year- the (battles,) sieges, (fortunes)

That I have passed.

I ran it through, even from my boyish days

To th’ very moment that he bad me tell it,

Wherein I spoke of most disastrous chances:

Of moving accidents by flood and field,

Of hairbreadth ‘scapes i’ th’ imminet deadly

breach,

Of being taken by the insolent foe

And sold to slavery, of my redemption thence,

And portance in my traveler’s history,

Wherein of antres vast and deserts idle,

Rough quarries, rocks, (ands) hills whose (heads)

touch heaven,

It was my hint to speak- such was my process-

And of the cannibals that each (other) eat,

The Antropophagi, and men whose heads

(Do grow) beneath their shoulders. These things to

hear… (Act I, Sc. iii)

Othello uses excellent imagery to enable the readers to imagine his epic past. Sentences such as “from year to year- the (battles,) sieges, (fortunes),” and “And sold to slavery, of my redemption thence, and portance in my traveler’s history,” demonstrate how Othello has suffered in the past; it also indicates how he struggled to survive.

Unfortunately, as soon as Iago poisons Othello’s mind with stories about his wife’s alleged affair with Cassio, Othello’s speech becomes dark in tone. Othello’s soul leaves behind happiness and love to be enveloped by anger and hatred:

I had been happy if the general camp,

Pioners and all, had tasted her sweet body,

So I had nothing known. O, now, forever

Farewell the tranquil mind! Farewell content…

Villain, be sure thou prove my love a whore!

Be sure of it. Give me the ocular proof,

Or, by the worth of mine eternal soul,

Thou hadst been better have been born a dog

Than answer my waked wrath. (Act III, Sc. iii)

Othello is uttering “farewell” to his tranquil thoughts, and he now thinks of his wife as a “whore.” The use of such disparaging vocabulary portrays how he no longer believes Desdemona to be the honest woman he married, and how he is developing feelings of loathing against her. The following quotation also demonstrates the grotesque progression in Othello’s tone:

Never, [Iago. Like to the Pontic Sea,

Whose icy current and compulsive course

Ne’er [feels] retiring ebb, but keeps due on

To the Propontic and the Hellespont,

Even so my bloody thoughts, with violent pace

Shall ne’er look back, ne’er ebb to humble love,

Till that a capable and wide revenge

Swallow them up. Now by yond marble

heaven,]

In the due reverence of a sacred vow,

I here engage my words…

Not with vain thanks but with acceptance

bounteous,

And will upon the instant put thee to ‘t.

Within these three days let me hear thee say

That Cassio’s not alive…

Damm her, lewd minx! O, damn her, damn

her!

Come, go with me apart. I will withdraw

To furnish me with some swift means of death

For the fair devil. Now art thou my lieutenant. (Act III, Sc. iv)

Othello makes reference to the well-known Pontic Sea, a body of water completely surrounded by Ottoman possessions. In this simile, he compares his infuriating and bloody thoughts to the sea’s current, which never stops until it reaches its destination. Othello also emphasizes his high status by identifying himself with elements of nature and makes it clear that the course he takes is one from which there is no return, just like the flow of a current. Othello now believes Iago’s lies; therefore, he wants to seek revenge against Cassio. He wants Cassio dead; therefore, Othello’s diction is more intense as he “damn’s” his wife and refers to her as “fair devil”. Moreover, his diction includes negative words such as “death,” “revenge,” and “violent,” which reveal Othello’s tortured soul and suggest his oncoming madness.

A final passage shows how completely Othello has changed. His loving, respectful tone has become an aggressive and wrathful one:

She says enough. Yet she’s a simple bawd

That cannot say as much. This is a subtle whore,

A closet lock and key of villainous secrets.

And yet she’ll kneel and pray. I have seen her do ‘t…

Come, swear it. Damn thyself,

Lest, being like one of heaven, the devils themselves

Should fear to seize thee. Therefore be double

damned.

Swear thou art honest…

Heaven truly knows that thou art false as hell. (Act IV, Sc. ii)

Keep in mind:
This is only a sample.

Get a custom paper now from our expert writers.

Othello’s perception of his once beloved Desdemona has transformed dramatically. He no longer refers to her as “the gentle Desdemona” but as “a subtle whore, a closet lock and key of villainous secrets…” Othello has lost all faith in his wife, and therefore the beauty and peacefulness of his speech has turned vulgar and insulting. Shakespeare’s use of language to demonstrate this character’s changing temperament is highly effective, and is instrumental to the success of Othello as a play.

Since the beginning of history, language has been the most important means of communication and development amongst humans. Because of language's enormous significance, manipulating it to control a large group of people is extremely effective. In The Handmaid's Tale, Margaret Atwood creates Gilead, an imaginary futuristic regime involving the complete stripping of freedom from women. Even though the new government employs armies of spies and guards to enforce its laws, the real power lies in the government's control of language. Atwood subtly incorporates the theme of language into every aspect of the story, demonstrating not only the influence it has over groups of people but also how its absence affects the main character's sanity.

The novel begins with Offred, the main character and narrator, sitting in her stark, empty room at the Commander's house. Once a successful working mother, Offred is now merely a tool for reproduction. Like all other unmarried or lesbian women in the country, Offred must exchange her real name for the generic possessive title indicating which commander she services ('Offred' meaning 'Of Fred'). With the loss of their real names, the women automatically begin to lose touch with their former lives and find locating friends and family nearly impossible. The government takes a major step with this law toward its ultimate goal of ridding women of individual identities and indicating their insignificance to men.

In addition to mourning the death of her name, Offred aches for the abundance of reading material and conversation once so readily available. She spends most of her time sitting in her blank room where the only written word is the word "faith" embroidered on a cushion. The only times she can leave her room are to service the Commander and to go on her daily shopping outing with another handmaid, Ofglen. In anticipation of the handmaids' encounters with each other, the government teaches them acceptable conversation and forbids any deviation from it. Offred recounts a typical conversation during her walk with Ofglen:

'The war is going well, I hear,' she says.

'Praise be,' I reply.

'We've been sent good weather.'

'Which I receive with joy' (19).

By limiting conversations to such meaningless remarks and pitting the two women against each other as spies, the government prevents the leaking of secrets and the formation of friendships or alliances. The elimination of casual conversation and relationships from the women's lives serves the government well; the women crave human interaction so much that they are willing participants in the various sex, killing, and religious ceremonies that they would never have participated in previously.

The most important - and perhaps most disturbing - practice in Gilead is the Ceremony, when handmaids must visit their Commanders' rooms and have sex with them in attempts to get pregnant. At the beginning of Offred's experience as a handmaid, she plays with language in her mind to distract herself from the strange man on top of her: "Household. That is what we are. The Commander is the head of the household. The house is what he holds. To have and to hold, till death do us part. The hold of a ship. Hollow" (81). Offred's thoughts demonstrate her desperation to maintain some type of sanity; she struggles not to let her mental capabilities dwindle. After Offred lives with the Commander for some time, he secretly invites her to his room on a non-Ceremony night. Not knowing what to expect, Offred is shocked when the Commander asks her to play Scrabble with him. The word game is like a sensory overload for her:

"Larynx, I spell. Valance. Quince. Zygote. I hold the glossy counters with their smooth edges, finger the letters. The feeling is voluptuous. This is freedom, an eyeblink of it...What a luxury. The counters are like candies, made of peppermint, cool like that. Humbugs, those were called. I would like to put them in my mouth. They would taste of lime. The letter C. Crisp, slightly acid on the tongue, delicious" (139).

The Commander takes full advantage of the power he holds over Offred through language. He turns her on by providing her with forbidden treasures like Scrabble and fashion magazines, while at the same time enticing her to continue to risk her life by returning to his room at night. Eventually he begins exploiting her sexually, even dressing her up and taking her to a whorehouse one night. The Commander's manipulation of Offred through reading materials represents yet another way in which the government controls women's thoughts and actions through language.

In a society so accustomed to the freedom of speech, Atwood's futuristic view of civilization comes as a shock. She deftly constructs a terrifying regime grounded in the beliefs of different groups and political parties of our time and brings one of our most cherished freedoms under threat. Although critics most often discuss the novel as an attack on the religious right, it is equally a warning of the power language holds. Atwood effectively illustrates the extent to which the absence of names, speech, and the written word can affect one's mental health and control an entire society.

Table of contents

1.  Research Based Information About Language and Its Role
2. Conclusion
3. References

For this paper we were writing a research based informative essay about language role in the implementation of research emphasising on the role of multilingualism. Multilingualism meaning knowledge of several languages at one time has became very important aspects for any individual’s future growth. We take help of languages to communicate our ideas, thoughts, and feelings from one person to another whose purpose may vary but necessary for aimed goal. Learning multilingual languages help individual in boosting memory that is learning capacity of an individual which further help in enhancing analytical ability of in them to tackle different situations and responding accordingly. It helps individual in cultivating potential to think unthinkable which motivates individual and persuade them to contribute in development of any particular area of subject aimed for. People who having knowledge of different languages are skilled in four different aspects of skills- listening, reading, writing, speaking again it helps in accumulation of different knowledge from different field.

Learning different languages by individual act as key for different experts from different field to work together for a common goal that generally requires multiple skill sets. Researchers are the one who follows their own interest in the same area with different skills which when grounded on communication help in development in right way which can occur on same shared language. Involvement of different people also helps recruiting more people when language is used as rhetoric device. We conclude that common understanding from shared language plays a vital role in enhancing the relations of trust that are necessary for effective inter disciplinary working.

 Research Based Information About Language and Its Role

What is language? Language is a term that has been derived from a Latin word that is lingua which means tongue while in old French it is made up of word named as langage. Then one another question comes to our mind that how and when language emerged? So here it is assumed or It has been traditionally explained that the evolution of language have often been used in beneficial of human activities especially in old times when men were not advanced starting from period of evolution of human life when they generally used sign and symbolic language for their livelihood has led to developments of language which derived access to information to them about ecological problems such as the location of food sources by creating maps, how to make tools, or how to use tools for extractive foraging and setting their homes thereby preventing from harsh climatic conditions changing over an year. With the help of language they got exposed to Social knowledge, Deception and Theory of mind. Similarly, language users could have got one another advance or prior warning of the approach of predators, or plan and co-ordinate hunting strategies better than they could otherwise do without language. Such theories often distinctly assume that language is essentially a very cooperative and designed tool for facilitating cooperation which may be needed at anytime for any purpose.

Then what will be the definition of language which will be describing it entirely in all respects. According to patanjali language is the human expression which is uttered by speech organs while Encyclopedia Britannica defines languages as a system of conventional spoken or written symbols by means of which human beings as members of social groups and participants in culture communicate. According to Mario A pie and frank Gaynor “a system of communication by sound that is through the organs of speech and hearing among human beings of a certain group or community, using vocal symbols possessing arbitrarily conventional meaning”. Many researchers have put their definitions with the help of different use of words. It is basically a sharing of one person’s mental concept to another person for a specific purpose.

Language is the only method by which one person can communicate his idea, thoughts and feelings to other person. It involves complex process where communication done in cycle where each step is important for effective communication. Which communication would be called as effective communication? Basically, effective communications is the communication between two people where sender intended message reaches to receiver without any distortion. In communication process the encoder encodes message and convert it into words and then choose medium to share either electronically or vocally to the sender which again decodes and understands it and then give valuable feedback for entire understanding of message. But this is possible only when encoder and decoder are familiar in same language that may involves the exchange of words through meaningful interaction, required for participants to study participants when seeking research information. To fully understand the importance of both language and communication in qualitative research, it is necessary to reflect on how language is viewed under the differing theoretical constructs of positivism and interpretative approaches. Most of the children learn language effortlessly but there are few who learn slowly face some difficulties throughout in their schooling period because this is the critical age where his/her language learning ability are affected by lots of factors. it depends on by how much children are being exposed to particular environment where there are lots of ways for more and more vocabulary grasping generally in many schools there is specially a playing rooms are made for letting children learn different animals, birds, pets name through playing with toys and cards .the number of books available for child and their frequency of visiting library also have great impacts . It is considered that learning vocabulary enhance the person’s memory skills by increasing brain’s muscle power and it give edge to thinking about particular aimed subject in broader sense. But very few of us know that Earlier environment for communication skill is very important. Generally children when are weak in their communication face greater delay in their success. Children belonging from lower socio demographic backgrounds which means family with lower education level and income and place where they belong like rural areas so on where exposure to developing world is very less are likely to have poorer skills in languages when they start schools which also hampers further communication because of shattered confidence and also feeling of inferior inbuilt among them. Nowadays, it has became very important for one to have a good command over language because efficient communication can only solve issues and deal with situations and could give some better conclusions over it. So parents must motivate and inspire their child to go for some activities where they are being heard and motivated. It has been seen individual with good communication skill have greater growth in their career than another who having more knowledge to him.

Welsh government has taken lots of initiative to improve oracy skills among students for better development of nations. The Pori Drwy Stori Nursery program builds on Book Trust’s well-established programs in Wales, Bookstart and Pori Drwy Stori. Both program are funded by Welsh Government and available free of charge for every child in Wales, with children, families and schools receiving free resources that is reading material and books to have fun with reading and sharing rhymes From children’s first few months of life to their first year of school. 2011 was considered as the national year of communication where a campaign known as the Hello campaign launched. The Communication Trust ran Hello in partnership with Jean Gross, Communication Champion for children. Hello aimed to make children and young people's communication a priority in homes and schools across the country. The campaign had a special focus on championing the needs of children and young people with speech, language and communication needs and their families. This campaign developed three strategic projects which was A Chance to Talk, Communication Ambassadors and Talk of the Town to support parents to develop their children's communication skills and schools in their growing role as commissioners of SLCN services. This campaign is supported by group of voluntary and community service organizations who have expertise and knowledge of children's skill in speech, language and communication. Along them there are many organizations which supported it generously like BT, Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists, Manchester federation, Pre School Learning Alliance etc. Special educational needs and disability is one of the important Government priorities. The Bercow Review of services for children and young people with speech language and communication needs in 2008 was followed by the setting up of the Communication Trust, the Communication Council and the 2011 Year of Speech Language and Communication Needs. The Special Educational Needs and Disabilities Green Paper, published in March 2011 for purpose of looking for reforming education and health support for children with special educational needs. Additionally, there is a tremendous increasing contortion in the policy domain on language and communication in a child’s early years. Recent reports including the review of the Early Years Foundation Framework have recognized the foundational role of language and communication in children’s learning. The Andhra Pradesh Higher Education English Communication Skills Project launched which aimed to improve the English language proficiency and employability skills of college students at higher education colleges in Andhra Pradesh. Additionally the project involved training a cadre of Master Trainers and cohorts of teachers in classroom pedagogy, teaching methodology and communicative language teaching methods using a cascade model so that institutional training capacity can be built and learners have ongoing access to high quality teaching and learning. The key objectives of this project are Learners will improve their workplace English, employability and soft skills through an integrated training solution (face-to-face and online) and thereby have access to increased opportunities for further education and employment in their future which can enhance a person’s standard of living which in turn help in development of nations. Secondly, English teachers are able to employ teaching methodologies which facilitate more communicative language learning outcomes. Thirdly, a suitable cadre of Master Trainers will be developed, who will support the on-going training and professional development of English teachers in colleges on a sustainable basis.

We conclude that interdisciplinary projects must allocate time to it for an overall development. Hence language is extremely important it is a fundamental tool through which qualitative researchers seek to understand human behavior, social processes and the cultural meanings that inscribe human behavior.  Failure in recognizing and acknowledging the role of language and communication issues in research may impact on the rigour and reliability of the research. Especially in Cross-cultural research where, there is variability and invariance, because of diverse cultural conditions.

Every day in schools and college one has to know that particular language where all matter of discussion goes on so it becomes highly important to know about it. Our education is entirely dependent on language; both written language and spoken language are to be used in throughout our academic. Action within educational contexts is next to impossible without having command over language. Schools exist both in and by language. Research in social sciences, is also dependent on language. So it becomes very much true that Research is conducted in and by language. The first and foremost part of any research especially talking within educational contexts is - the language. Because situation may be happening where every practitioners have to discuss with other among group is using Or maybe conversing in two different languages, two different vocabularies for same matter or subject which can only leads to confusion and hence failure in knowledge extraction from theories and particular areas of field researchers and practitioners have to coordinate their joint action that aimed for negotiating goals, to choose means and to evaluate outcomes of it. Besides this interpersonal function, language also have an important function of building and maintaining theories by providing means by which we are able to represent objects and phenomenon’s in our world as well as interpret and understand the relationships between them.. Language in everyday use are generally very natural, informal and are being constantly evolved by different people from varied culture and region but when it comes to the language of science it should be characterized by formality, high stylization and precision. Science language is the one which has to be very précised and universally accepted where no one can deny the use of any specific term. Then another question arises with these why is language a major area of research?

• Language requires many other capacities – Perception, categorization, memory, motor skill.
• It can be explored from many different perspectives of people.
• It may be the one ability which is unique to humans.
• It may be the heart of thought that pours directly into form of words either written form, spoken form or by any gestures specifically either verbally or nonverbally.

In research one has to carefully consider studies regarding about a particular issue of concern where by using scientific methods. One has to produce conclusion or result about it that’s can happen only with the very first object called language.  Research are generally consists of description, prediction, and explanation/understanding which again have to use of language for better and common shared understanding

Conclusion

Our forgoing discussions shows that language act as vehicle for collaborative work in any institutions, hospitals and in any research work .by means of it we can explore more and more around our surrounding .we can learn more phenomenon and understand them. the importance of using language is clear, vivid, stylized, ethical and that reflects well on we as the speaker.. Linguistic interaction with other people is a key aspect of learning. We also begin to develop more critical skills, asking questions about what we actually mean by language and whether it is possible and necessary to separate out one language from another .it has been seen that individual good in communication skill is skilled in four aspects of communication skill reading skills, speaking skill ,writing skill, listening skills. As generally research consists of predictions, descriptions, and explanations has to be made out in language hence it is very first object for further understanding of any phenomenon. So it can be concluded researches are done within language. language have greater role in interpreting and understanding various relationships among different phenomenon.

Keep in mind:
This is only a sample.

Get a custom paper now from our expert writers.

Languages are the heart of thought that pours directly into form of words either written form, spoken form or by any gestures specifically speaking it either verbally or nonverbally.

References

• Doing Cross Cultural research by (SINS,VOLUME-34).
• Lokavishkar International E-Journal, ISSN 2277-727X, Vol-I, Issue-IV, Oct-Nov-Dec2012
• Eli Furu and Petri Salo Department of Education and Teacher education, University of Tromsö, Norway Department of Education and Special Education, Åbo Academy University, Finland.
• Close, R. (2004). Television and language Development in the Early Years: a review of the literature. London: National Literacy Trust.
• Department for Children, Schools and Families (2008) Better Communication An action plan to improve services for children and young people with speech, language and communication needs. Notts: DCFS.