Group 9: Final Blog Presentation

Research Skills Presentation ...

More PowerPoint presentations from Kathryn

Presentation Script

Slide 1) Research Skills Project by Group 9. Conducted by Megan Lawton, Kathryn Myers, Hayley Yates, Vicki Haworth and Tabitha Dunn

Slide 2) After some complications with exactly where our focus was going, we came up with a research question that best defined what we were aiming to find out from our project: How do Creative Insults Vary in their Linguistic Features? Focussing Specifically on Twitter. The term ‘creative insults’ was one we felt appropriate in covering all of the phrases we would be looking at.

Slide 3) Our initial inspiration for the project developed from a keen interest in the cases of high profile internet abuse reported recently in the media. We felt that we could examine these cases from a linguistic point of view, focusing on how the language used in the ‘troll’ posts caused offense. However, due to difficulties surrounding data collection and applications of the literature, we later opted for the focus of ‘creative insults’, with the intention of comparing and contrasting the different linguistic features found in several cases of ‘trolling’ on the social networking site twitter.

SLIDE 4) In order to collect the data for the research project, each member of the group individually researched a high profile twitter incident, where an insult/threat of some sort occurred, in many cases the tweet/series of tweets were considered so severe/offensive they were taken to court. There was one exception amongst the case studies, in the form of the comedian Frankie Boyle. We analysed several of Frankie’s tweets purely for a point of comparison amongst the others, as we believed his insults are intended to be humorous and not hurtful. Linguistically we were intrigued to find out what deems a tweet offensive and humorous. 

After each member had chosen their case, we each read various articles, blogs and pieces of academic literature relevant to the research question, for example Labov’s  ‘rules for ritual insults’, the texts enabled us to create a linguistic analysis/comparison between the tweets.

Slide 5) Case study one looks at tweets sent from @Riley_69 during the Olympics the tweets were a mix of direct threats, insults and responses to the media attention.  The 8 separate tweets are just a small number out of the many that could have been analysed but these give a good example of the creativity and variation that insults possess.  The celebrity status of the victim and the severity of the language created a media hype that spanned tabloids and broad sheets alike. The police became involved due to the threatening nature of some of the tweets but no charges were bought. It is interesting to note that more media attention was put on the tweets that contained other forms of dysphemism other than threats.

SLIDE 6) Case study two unlike the other 4 case studies consists of one tweet only. The tweet, written by Paul Chambers in January 2010, is a threat aimed at ‘Robin Hood Airport’, the tweet declares Chamber’s intentions of “blowing the airport sky high”.  This is an example of an impoliteness output strategy (as defined by Anna Holmberg) that aims to ‘frighten’- in other words the tweet has the potential to make others believe an action will occur that is harmful. The impoliteness output strategy of ‘Frightening’ flouts the maxim of relevance. Chambers was taken to court under the Malicious Communications Act 2003, however was cleared after it was argued messages sent in jest, regardless of the subjective view of the appropriateness or quality of their humour should be taken as such. Holmberg provides an interesting perspective that insults are down to interpretation, and this seems heavily the case with this tweet. It’s also worth considering sarcasm, blatantly insincere in nature, but effective in causing havoc if interpreted as the author did not wish.

Slide 7) Unlike the other Case Studies analysed in the research, Case study 3 focuses on one main victim of abuse, the ex-England footballer and sports pundit Stan Collymore, and analyses four racially provoked tweets personally directed at him by three unrelated authors. The two most prolific of these tweets were sent by @JoshuaCryer1. Cryer addressed Collymore with stereotypically racist language, using the Twitter convention of ‘hashtagging’ in order to sadistically summarise and reiterate his abuse, changing his form of register to promote humour. Cryer’s was  charged under section 127 of the Communications Act for sending grossly offensive messages, and ordered a two year community order and fine. 

Slide 8) As Holmberg’s thesis demonstrates, looking at completely different types of online insults is a useful way of gaining an insight into just how many different ways people can creatively insult others; something that became a prime focus from early on in our research methods. Case Study four focussed on the tweets from Student Liam Stacey, who wrote various tweets about footballer Fabrice Muamba just moments after the footballer had suffered a near fatal heart attack and was fighting for his life. For the threatening tweets, Stacey was sentenced to 66 days in prison, with the conviction that the tweets were posted intentionally to cause harassment.

Slide 9) Case Study 5 was chosen with the intention of being a comparison against the four other studies. Whilst all the other  ‘creative insults’ we looked at were from members of the public who were originally unknown, and only came to be known as a result of their insults on Twitter, this study was of Frankie Boyle – a well-known comedian.  Labov suggests that ritual insults should be responded to using the special forms appropriate to the insult exchange, and not as if they were intended literally, with the knowledge that the content of the insult cannot in fact be true. This suggestion of Labov provided an interesting stance to look at the insults of Frankie Boyles. The main intention was to see how they differed because they were written with the intention of being humorous – is it clear that ‘the content of the insult is not in fact true’, and if so how does the language differ in order to portray this?  Boyles tweets, are generally not aimed at anyone in particular, but tend to be a humorous remark about something current in the news. For example: ‘Just found out I’m the only non-child molester in Britain and it’s all some mad paedo show.’ (around the time of the Jimmy Saville case).

Slide 10) Sentence Types: We analysed the individual case studies by sentence structure to try and see if one kind of sentence type was more common than the others. The easiest way to do this was to look at whether the 4 main sentence types – imperatives, interrogatives, declaratives and exclamatory – were present. Imperatives were found in 3 of the studies, interrogatives in only 1, declaratives in all of them and exclamatory sentences in 2.

Slide 11) As our results from the table show, four out of five case studies report extensive use of individual lexis, with the only exception being Frankie Boyle. Reasons for this may include the fact that as a comedian, his purpose is slightly different in that offending people is not his primary focus, whereas the other case studies demonstrate the intent to offend.

The results of the focus on the subject aspect demonstrate how tweets more often than not were directed explicitly to the subject in question. The focus on the subject in the case of Frankie Boyle, however, provided a stark contrast with that of the others. The general nature of his twitter page shown in the examples on the hand-out demonstrates how having a specific subject is less likely to occur.

Our analysis of typical insult employment helps to evaluate the levels of common cultural reiteration in the tweets. Three out of the five case studies featured typical insults ranging from stereotypical racist remarks to common offense turns of phrase. The employment of ‘your mum’ in case study four parodies on the common playground joke; such use of language certainly reduces the formality of the register in the tweet, however in context does not reduce the seriousness of the message related.

All of the case studies in this research demonstrated various aspects of negativity. Case studies 2 and 3 employed threatening language to convey their messages, whilst case study 4 was filled with extremely offensive lexis, all of which reflected negativity. In case study 5, negativity is implicated at, however, appears less offensive than the other cases. This is reflective of Frankie Boyle’s stylistic dark humour which is able to shock, but not particularly offend the audience.

Slide 12) Summary of Results: With regards to sentence type, it was declaratives that appeared the most throughout all of our examples. As a group, we concluded that this might be due to the nature of social networking – twitter in particular. As the concept of Twitter is to state your thoughts, with a limit of 140 characters, people are most likely to be declaring a thought they are having, be it insulting or not. Again, this might explain the lack of interrogatives we found. When people are creating an insult they are generally aiming a horrible statement at someone, without the need to invite response. A particularly interesting result was how explicit offensive lexis was used throughout all the cases except Frankie Boyle; who tends to create an insulting or explicit semantic implication of his tweets, as opposed to using explicit language within his creations. A final thought was that typical insults seemed to be used  often as an attempt to create humour through an insult. Phrases such as ‘your mum’ and ‘you look like a monkey’ are often used, in these context it seems, as a way of the author or the tweet seeming funny; perhaps a method of being more successful concerning the response of the insult – how others perceive it. 

SLIDE 13) Overall the project ran smoothly and we are happy with the final outcome, however we did encounter some minor problems throughout the term. We struggled to define our research question, particularly in relation to linguists. Initially the original study was centred around internet trolls, however we found this topic too broad, and we were carried away with our personal interests. At one point we formed a questionnaire but found the answers wouldn’t benefit our study in any way, at this point we refined our research question, focusing on creative insults on the social network of twitter, with particular emphasis on their linguistic features. After finding a criteria for features commonly used in creative insults, we could then easily analyse the case studies and find correlations, similarities and differences amongst them, we now feel satisfied that our project has reached a conclusion and we have gained knowledge from the study.

If we were to extend the project we would focus on the origin and culture of typical insults, paying interest to where they emerged from, for example rap battles.  We also feel a comparison could be made between various social networks where insults are concerned, does the nature of twitter invite a certain form of insult in comparison to Facebook for example?

Slide 15) As a group, we feel the credits of this project should be spread equally between us. We were efficient in organising weekly meetings, to which all members attended without fail.  At the meetings, all of us made equal contribution to the task, and, particularly when we came to having problems with the focus of our research question, everyone put an equal amount of effort into helping get back on track. As well as the blog, our group created a Facebook group, which worked well in ensuring all members knew about any changes to meetings, as well as an easy method of posting files and passing thoughts onto each other, before they were ready to posted onto the blog.

 Slide 16) Thank you for taking the time to listen and watch our presentation. We are happy to answer any questions you may have.

Research question rethink and focus

After a meeting with Alison, we decided to rethink the focus of our research question, using the same research case studies, we thought that we should focus on
"creative insults"
people got noticed on all of our case studies because of the way they used language, and if we could each analyse our own case studies (it can include anything off that persons twitter site, from whatever time) and pick out key features that make it offensive for monday that would be excellent.

Things like:
Imperatives
Focus on subject (who its directed at)
Gender
Functions of the language
Declarative
Interrogative
Negative
Individual offensive lexis.

On monday we will meet at 12 for 2 hours to compare findings and recognise patterns and recurring linguistic elements used to make up creative insults? Then collate and come up with some sort of conclusion!!

Also if we could all find just one piece of literature each about creative insults/language of social networking to bring.

Ethics

As the questionnaire we are sending out contains terms that some will find offensive we felt it was necessary to make it clear on our coversheet that people should not feel obliged to do the questionnaire should they not wish too. We felt that as long as we made our participants aware that this type of language was included, they would be able to choose whether or not they wish to participate. We will only be asking people who are aged 18 or above and now we have focused our topic a bit more we believe the offensive terms are very necessary to acquire useful data.

‘What we’ve done and what we need to do’

Since receiving feedback on our project proposal, we have amended several aspects of our research skills project. We feel the feedback was very useful, and as a group we now feel more clear and ready to continue with our project.

Each member of our group has now chosen a case study to look at and have provided specific examples, which have all been posted on the blog. From these case studies we were able to form a survey, for which we have sent the pilot out for feedback. Once we have received feedback on our survey, each member of our group will send it out to ten people. Whilst waiting for feedback we are all individually contributing to a literature review which we will compile in the same meeting as looking over our survey results.

Our next steps towards completing our project will be to collect and analyse the results of the surveys, which we intend to do next week. Once we have analysed our findings we will be able to start putting together our presentation, ready for week 11.

Case Study - Tweets to Tom Daley

I have chosen to look at the tweets sent to Tom Daley during the Olympics this year from Tweeter Rileyy_69.

This case created a lot of media attention and multiple articles in tabloid and broadsheet newspapers. The police became involved (due to the tweets that were deliberately threatening ‘I’m going to drown you in the pool’) although no charges were brought.

The reason these tweets are interesting is because they flout many of the Taboos that society has set and that are outlined in Allan, K and Burridge, B (2006) ‘Forbidden Words: Taboo and the censoring of language’, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge such as the Taboo of swearing, insult, death and killing.

He uses very offensive language to insult Daley, calling him ‘a over hyped prick’, a ‘cocky twat’ and claims ‘people like you make me sick’.  But what is perhaps more uncomfortable is the personalisation of the comments and threats – he uses nicknames, ‘tommy’- and personal pronouns -‘ I am going to drown you’ and ‘hope your crying now’ which seems to make the threats and comments not only more personal but more real.

The Tweets

Case Study: Frankie Boyle

The case study I will be bringing to the project is to provide a comparison with the other studies, in relation to who the tweets are coming from. I have chosen to look at Frankie Boyle, a comedian well known for his near-the-mark humour. The language he uses on his Twitter account is just as bad as the language used in the other case studies, so this will provide an interesting insight as to why Frankie Boyle is not punished for his language - how is the intention of humour come through the vulgar language?

Examples of Frankie Boyle's tweets to look at:

These links are all to articles referring to Frankie Boyle's tweets, which may be helpful to use after we've received feedback from our questionnaries. It might be interesting to compare why his tweets can be referred to as a joke, as they are in the following article, when what is being said is not unlike the other cases we are studying. Is there something in how he chooses to write them that makes it less offensive? This is also something we can include in our questionnaire, to see if when read with just the language, with no knowledge of who wrote them, these tweets are still perceived as humorous.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/micwright/100007998/sick-comments-on-twitter-are-now-ludicrously-a-criminal-offence-so-how-come-no-one-has-arrested-frankie-boyle/

Fabrice Muamba/ Liam Stacey Case Study: Brief Summary.

Intention: High profile case, studied for the intention of the type of language used and subsequent consequences (hoping that examples – omitting names – will provoke different responses to that of the legal system of our country; and causing us to look at why).

Action: Liam Stacey tweeted “LOL f*** Muamba. He’s dead!!” along with a string of other offensive twitter posts on 17th March 2012, at a time where Fabrice Muamba, Bolton Football Club Player, was fighting for his life after suffering a heart attack during an FA cup quarter final.

Reaction/Legal Response: Liam Stacey, 21, a second year biology student at Swansea University, was found guilty of inciting racial aggravation, under the Public Order Act 1986 and sentenced to 56 days in prison.

As well as this he was suspended from his university degree, having to take his final exams a year late, and was banned from coming near the campus, as well as the privilege of a graduation being taken away from him.

Stacey pleaded guilty, admitting to using threatening, insulting words with intent to cause harassment, alarm or distress.

Comments: Stacey’s solicitor said he had “foolishly lost his temper” at a time where the public at large were praying for Muamba’s recovery.

The district judge, John Charles, commented when sentencing that there was “no alternative to an immediate prison sentence”, as well as describing Stacey’s tweets as “vile and abhorrent”.

Stacey was quoted saying “I don’t know why I decided to tweet about it” claiming that he was intoxicated at the time.

Appeal from Stacey: Liam Stacey appealed for a reduced sentence, or community service, with his solicitor putting forth the point that he had suffered enough, and that what he said will remain “a blot on his character forever”.

Justice Wyn Williams rejected the appeal, saying very rarely had an individual attracted so many stigmas. Stacey had pleaded guilty to racially aggravated public disorder with intent. Williams believed that Stacey knew what he wanted to say and intended to provoke the reaction he did.

Reception from the public: the majority of articles that appears when the key words “Fabrice Muamba” or “Liam Stacey” are typed into a search engine result in the bloggers/journalists/news reports branding Stacey’s words extremely offensive and unnecessary. His provocative language and excessive use of expletives have built up a public image of a violent, racist youth whose comments were simply unacceptable in the public domain.

Separate Point of Interest: The Telegraph’s Mic Wright (journalist specialising in technology, music and popular culture) wrote an e-article surrounding twitter ‘trolls’; beginning with “sick comments on twitter are now, ludicrously, a criminal offence. So how come no-one has arrested Frankie Boyle?” His article then goes on to compare the fan base of ‘Celebrity Trolls’ to the comparatively anonymous tweeters that seem to be targeted by the law.

The language of racial discrimination found in twitter trolling

The language of racial discrimination found in twitter trolling
Case Study: Stan Collymore

I have found two events concearning the racial discrimination of Stan Collymore. More racial descrimination cases are availible, however I have chosen to focus on Collymore due to the lesser media attention than other cases (hoping that if I need to reference the case in the questionaire this case will triggar less emtional attached responced) and as the Collymore has published racist attacks which have been both prosequted and ignored.



High profile case which spread awareness however did not lead to any legal action (all data taken from articles)
HEADLINE: Former England footballer Stan Collymore 'receives 200 vile race abuse Tweets a day'

‘Ex-footballer Stan Collymore has told how he is receiving up to 200 vile hate messages from users on a social network site, with one branding him a 'monkey.'
The talkSPORT radio pundit re-tweeted one of the racist messages he had received from one user who wrote: '@StanCollymore why are u black? U look like a monkey.' 
'Using the code name Wpww-hooligan-88m, the user's Twitter profile states 'My blood is my honour, my race is my pride’ and who profile picture is a swastika with the words white power on. Immediately Collymore, 42, tweeted: 'Had enough of twitter tbf but won’t go because it’s a great work tool, and too much positive feedback. Sick of the daily abuse though.’ 'I must get 150-200 abusive messages a day now, just constant reminders of stuff that happened a long time a go. Not nice at all.’

 

Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2112551/Stan-Collymore-receives-200-vile-race-abuse-Tweets-day-refuses-quit-Twitter.html (Accessed 22nd October 2012)

 

 

 

High profile case which did lead to legal action (Data taken from 2 articles)

HEADLINE: Joshua Cryer, Newcastle Student Who Called Stan Collymore 'Coon' In Racist Tweet, Spared Jail

'Joshua Cryer, 21, admitted using the social networking site to bombard the football pundit with abuse in an attempt to "snare a celebrity", a district judge at Newcastle Magistrates' Court heard today. Cryer told police he hoped to gain a reaction from Collymore, who is a broadcaster for talkSport, campaigns against racism and is a supporter of the Depression Alliance charity.'

'Admitted a charge under section 127 of the Communications Act of sending grossly offensive messages. District Judge Stephen Earl ordered that he complete a two-year community order with 240 hours unpaid work, and pay £150 costs to the court.'

Prosequtor Veronica Jordan said: 'It was not impulsive. He has done this up to seven times over a period of days.’ 'That does not smack of impulsive behaviour’ 'He was intending to insult and abuse.'

SOURCE: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/03/21/joshua-cryer-newcastle-university-stan-collymore-racist-tweet_n_1369478.html (Accessed 22nd October 2012)



HEADLINE 2 (ACTUAL TWEET CONTENT): Stan Collymore subjected to racist abuse on Twitter

Talksport confirmed that a Twitter user sent one racist message which read: "@StanCollymore has anyone ever called you Stan Cooneymore #greatracistabuse."
The second read: "@StanCollymore has anyone ever referred to you as semi pro as in a semi pro coon #neitherwhitenorblack."
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/07/stan-collymore-racist-abuse-twitter (Accessed 22nd October 2012)

 

 

 

 

 

Paul Chambers Basic Case Study (Summary)

Paul Chambers threatening airport tweet (May 2010-July 2012)

·         Paul Chambers, 28, of Northern Ireland, was found guilty in May 2010 of sending a "menacing electronic communication" via twitter. Case was taken to High Court in London

"Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your shit together, otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!!"

-       Courts stated that the message intended/did create fear/apprehension in those who read it and therefore can be deemed menacing and criminal

-       This sparked attention from supporters of Paul Chambers, stating that the law needed to catch up, and accommodate irony and wit

Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge, Mr Justice Owen and Mr Justice Griffith Williams, said: "If the person or persons who receive or read it, (the message) or may reasonably be expected to receive, or read it, would brush it aside as a silly joke, or a joke in bad taste, or empty bombastic or ridiculous banter, then it would be a contradiction in terms to describe it as a message of a menacing character."

·         Chambers appealed, believing he should not have been fined £385:

-First appeal was dismissed by a crown court judge in November 2010, who said the electronic communication was "clearly menacing" and that airport staff were sufficiently concerned to report it.

John Cooper QC highlighted to the judges it was obvious the tweet was a joke and it was sent by someone who did not hide his identity. It is also relevant to consider the tweet was discovered five days after it was posted, when Paul had flown, making it an empty threat.

“It was certainly not sent in the context of terrorism and it was wrong for the crown court to make such an association” Cooper.

Paul Chambers' QC told the High Court you can't define a "menacing threat" - but "you know it when you see it."

Did those who read the Tweet regard it as a joke or a bomb threat?

His lawyers argue the context of the words are important and that the judges should take into account where and how they appeared on his Twitter timeline.

OPPOSING ARGUMENT: The case to uphold the conviction is simple: It doesn't matter if Mr Chambers' friends chortled as they read his tweet as a joke. It became a crime because anyone at all, of reasonable state of mind, could regard it as a genuine threat.

Mr Cooper said for a message to be considered menacing, the person sending the message must intend to threaten the recipient and it has to contain a credible threat.

During the hearing, Mr Cooper was challenged by one of the judges on whether there was a genuine freedom of speech argument. The QC said that freedom of speech was not just there to protect the righteous but the unpleasant too.

·         Media Attention:

-Comedian Stephen Fry, said it was "very important" for freedom of speech.

-Comedian Al Murray "At worst, the tweet was offensive."

·         Conclusion:

-The Crown Prosecution Service said it would not appeal against the judgement. Paul Chambers wasn't convicted.

Response to Feedback

In response to the feedback we intend to post five summaries by Monday next week (22/10/12) of the case studies we will be looking at to see if they are appropriate and to receive feedback from other members of the group. As we have discovered the concept of Internet trolling is a new term, we will clarify our perception from the definitions given by broadsheet newspapers and academic journals to help focus our analysis.
We felt as though we did not fully explain our intentions concerning the measure of severity we intend to use in our project. We would like to make it clear that we will use the responses from the public expressed in our questionnaire as a basis for interpreting how offensive the language of the case studies is perceived.
In response to your concern about the recipients of our questionnaire, we intend to use the internet service survey monkey and email our questionnaire directly to our participants. We will each ask ten men and ten women to complete our questionnaire. Half of the recipients will be over the age of thirty and half under.
We are no longer planning to only look at high profile cases, as we don't want to focus on the legal side and feel it more appropriate to concentrate on the linguistic features of the troll posts.
Thank you for your feedback!

Project Proposal

Research Question: ‘To what extent does language determine the severity of internet troll posts, focussing specifically on Britain?’

Overview: We intend to create an in depth study into the language of internet trolls in Britain. We aim to focus particularly on high profile cases in the media that have provoked not only the attention of the public but may have required legal enquiries, and if so, why? Whilst we are aware that it is often images or content that may provoke such consequences, we want to focus specifically on the language use and the implications of this. We feel this topic is particularly relevant in today’s society with the use of Twitter and Facebook becoming an integral part of everyday life.

Methodology: To start with, each member of the group will explore a specific case study of this kind and post their findings to the blog. We are aware that with using only five case studies, we will not be able to provide an entirely comprehensive conclusion, as this is an area of language that is constantly developing and consistently gaining new examples. We do, however, intend to provide an extremely comprehensive analysis and insight into the reaction of the public and courts of law.

Once we have five examples we will discuss and analyse the language, looking particularly at the words that appear to be the most severe. Following this, we will create a questionnaire which will obtain the responses of hundred participants from two different age groups, in order to compare perceptions of the language we are studying.

Ethics:   Due to the nature of our study, a lot of expletives will be involved. In order to keep our study ethical we will ensure to only question those over eighteen – before inviting people to complete the questionnaire we will brief them on the sort of language that will appear and warn them that it may be offensive to some. We intend to keep all cases anonymous, and just focus on the linguistic features rather than who the example might be about.

Hypothesis: We are hoping to obtain a consensus on what types of internet trolling posts are considered the most severe; maybe also some consensus on the types of language used in these posts. We will look to find what words used have caused the most offence, in the media, courts of law and from results of our questionnaire, which may differ between gender, age, beliefs and values.

A literature review will follow, compiling information from current internet journals, broadsheet newspaper articles and general books regarding the language of the internet.

Agenda and Minutes of First Meeting

Agenda:

1. Discuss which area of language will be used for the group research. 
2. Discuss what needs to be done in terms of wider reading .
3. Discuss what initial research must be done to narrow down the initial ideas.

Minutes of Meeting

1. It was immediately decided that the most interesting investigation would arise from choosing a project that was interesting while also being unusual.
2. All agreed that "the language of internet trolls" was a good starting point for our investigation.
3. Various ideas were mentioned as potential aspects of this topic that could be investigated; famous trolls, extreme or highly offensive trolling, trolling culture and regularly used terms and the lack of politeness principles and maxims to cause offense.

Follow-up

1. Each participant agreed to read around the subject and investigate aspects of this topic that they found interesting before the next meeting for discussion.

Collective Reflection

As a group, we feel as though there were certain aspects that we all struggled with, for example referencing. It was a new skill that we all had to acquire, and at first we found it daunting however as we had to include it in every piece of work we soon got to grips with it, with the help of the handbook. It is still a concern; however we are now more confident in this area.

Collectively, the skills we feel improved the most were the ability to research and collect relevant literature. We are aware that this is a valuable skill, and learning it will enable us to achieve in future projects.

Reflection of Skills Learnt in First Year

For the Independent Study module I chose to undertake a corpus study and an analysis of accent and dialect. The latter investigation involved creating a transcription of spoken dialect, using a questionnaire and forming a close analysis of results. Whilst I had done all three of these aspects before, I hadn’t done them in so much detail as was required for this task. I found, with both studies, that I had previously underestimated the importance of literature in studies like these;  I am now aware of how a close analysis often needs to be based on previous literature in order to form a better comparison and prove how useful the findings are.

Reflections on skills I have gained from first year

As part of my Independent Study module during my first year at University, I chose to focus on how a child acquires the knowledge of a language. This subject was something that at first, I had not given much thought to, therefore as we learnt more about the techniques and ways that children pick up on the language I found myself more and more interested.

I had never before had to write a corpus study, and so the skills involved were new to me, for example having to find research from a corpora, using this software for the first time.

I initially struggled to grasp the concept of a corpus study, yet by the end of the project felt a lot more confident in terms of what I needed to do. Upon receiving feedback on my corpus study I feel as though I know what is expected of me in the upcoming years, and gained the skills that allow me to approach similar studies with less anxiety which I hope will prove a valuable skill as I enter into my second year. 

Tabitha's Reflections on Skills Learnt in First Year

Last year, I chose to do a corpus study and a transcription with a questionnaire to discover the answers to linguistic questions of my own devising. Although initially I struggled to fully comprehend the type of investigations we were meant to be developing, after sufficient wider reading and a number of false starts, I gained a result I was pleased with as well as skills in research, referencing and how to use a corpus effectively. All of these things will be useful in my second year and I hope to develop my knowledge next year by tailoring my investigations to suit my personal linguistic interests.