https://padlet.com/natlima9/natlima9 en-us 2022-09-07 14:57:20 UTC 2022-11-17 06:11:51 UTC hello@padlet.com natlima9 https://padlet.com/natlima9/natlima9/wish/2296822242 Using the expression "would or should of" rather than "would've or should've" is one of the most commonly used incorrectly used expression. It's one I want to point out in other people because for a long time I used to think it was correct . I only stopped using it when I would get points taken off in my essays and it bothered me so much that I would be making such a sully mistake. "I would of rather have gone to Starbucks instead of Peets because I waited 15 minutes for my coffee." I mean when you read it out loud it's almost impossible to hear the difference since the "ve" sounds like "of" when said fluently in a sentence and that is probably how it originated. People hearing it said out loud and misunderstood and wrote of instead of have. 
When looking these expressions up to learn more about them, I came across a blog page called "Pain in the English" where someone posted a blog/rant about the recent popularity of using of the phrase "would of" replacing "would have". the blogger mentions that she heard it frequently in film and is now even being written in books. They, like many other "grammar nazis" see this is as one example of people trying to ruin the language. I would say for those who do not use it, such as this blogger, there definitely is a negative connotation towards the people who use it and deem the users of the phrase "uneducated". I can see why this is a little annoying to some, not going as far as saying that they are the ones ruining the language because language always develops over time. Like we no longer use Shakespearean English or even the English that was used in the 50s. But, I don't see a point in people continuing to use it because it doesn't shorten anything, "of" and "ve" are the same amount of letters so it's not a shortcut, just a word that wasn't understood correctly. 
Then next website I looked at, lawless english seems to be a website teaching those about the correct forms of grammar, most likely to those learning English or younger kids who are first learning rules. In this article, it states that even though "should of" is commonly used it is incorrect and "NEVER" typed in bold letters, be used. This seems to be a more unbiased article, teaching about the basic English grammar rules without sharing much input about how they really feel about it. It is juts about the actual correctness of the grammar being used, most likely for when someone is writing an essay to not get marked down for simple mistakes. But this just goes to show how even though it is addressed how it most likely came to be, which I explained earlier, it is just simply grammatically incorrect. 
Merriam Webster is the third article I looked at and it goes into a lot more detail about the replacement of have with of. It says that this phrase was first seen in literature in the 19th century when authors would try to replicate the speech of uneducated people. This greatly proves that people still correlate using "should of" "would of" and "could of" with improper uneducated people. 
In reading these articles I don't necessarily see anyone vouching for this and why it should be deemed correct, just that it is a very common misconception that people use and is only becoming more and more popular in literature, movies, and speech. This all definitely relates to the "standard language" and how if you don't speak exactly like that you are looked down upon and seen as uneducated.

]]> 2022-09-14 17:42:38 UTC https://padlet.com/natlima9/natlima9/wish/2296822242 natlima9 https://padlet.com/natlima9/natlima9/wish/2296822877 2022-09-14 17:43:02 UTC https://padlet.com/natlima9/natlima9/wish/2296822877 natlima9 https://padlet.com/natlima9/natlima9/wish/2296823991 2022-09-14 17:43:43 UTC https://padlet.com/natlima9/natlima9/wish/2296823991 natlima9 https://padlet.com/natlima9/natlima9/wish/2296824591 2022-09-14 17:44:07 UTC https://padlet.com/natlima9/natlima9/wish/2296824591 natlima9 https://padlet.com/natlima9/natlima9/wish/2305823318 In Brazil, eating cassava root or yucca root is a very staple dish in many households, and because it is eaten throughout all of Brazil that has many international influences incorporated into its culture, the word for cassava root is a linguistic variable; what people call it differs from region to region. This is a lexical variable because it involves word meaning, not how it sounds, or grammar structure. The 3 main variants of the word are mandioca, aipim, and macaxeira (even though I personally have never heard anyone say that one in real life).
Typically, it is the Northeast region in Brazil that says macaxeira, the coast that says aipim, and states like Minas Gerias, large part of Sao Paulo, and the northern states that say mandioca. 
Any of these variants are accepted throughout the country. 
When I was younger, I used to say aipim, as that is what is used in Rio, the city where my mother's side of the family is from. My grandma used to be the one to cook at home, and since she would be making it I learned of the vegetable from her, and learned it as aipim. As I got older, I started picking up on my dads slang and now call it mandioca. A big part of this being that in Massachusetts where I'm from, most Brazilian immigrants are from Minas Gerais, so many Portuguese speakers in Mass say mandioca rather than aipim or macaxeria. 
The linked video is a clip from Big Brother Brazil and one of the cast members held up a cassava root and asked what the others called this. Interestingly enough, out of the 4 people, only 2 of the variants were mentioned, aipim and macaxeira, not mandioca, which is one of the most commonly used version. The next clip is then of another person, most likely a journalist for Globo, the Brazil broadcasting television, saying that there are many different cultures that make up our country and that is why there are so many variations for the word, and that one is not more correct than the other, because these differences is what makes the country so special and unique.


]]> 2022-09-21 00:04:11 UTC https://padlet.com/natlima9/natlima9/wish/2305823318 natlima9 https://padlet.com/natlima9/natlima9/wish/2316522438 My first example of specific language in advertising is this Brazilian deli market in the neighborhood I grew up in. I was raised in a very prominent Brazilian community in Brighton, Massachusetts . Because of that, there has to be some Brazilian delis and markets with international products and meat cuts. Many Brazilians in Brighton moved to America later on in their life and was never able to learn English because they had to work full time and didn't have the money to pay for English courses. So these Brazilian delis in the area have to advertise their store in Portuguese so it could be understood by their main costumers. In this example, Oliveira's has huge lettering outside their store saying Açougue, Carniceria, and Meatshop, all meaning the same thing in Portuguese, Spanish, and English, respectively. Although there aren't any hispanic specific products, they advertised Spanish because there are universal Latin product. They wanted the Latin people in the community to see they have the products to use, and the store became widely popular among all Brazilians. ]]> 2022-09-28 00:31:19 UTC https://padlet.com/natlima9/natlima9/wish/2316522438 natlima9 https://padlet.com/natlima9/natlima9/wish/2316548235 In my second example, this is not so much as advertising but the name of a restaurant. I'm from Boston, which is known for the Boston accent and seafood. There's a restaurant right in the touristy part of downtown Boston called Boston Chowda Co. Intentionally, the word chowder is turned to chowda, as if to imitate the Boston accent. It's located in Faneuil Hall, a landmark most tourists go to because of its historical significance. They definitely named this to attract the tourists because why would they not go to a restaurant with a punny name advertising one of the most famous dishes of the city. I don't think it targets the people living in Boston, because it seems like its too artificially and touristy with a name like that, but it definitely attracts the tourists who are there for the week and want to knock as many things off on their itinerary as possible. Most of the people in the more recent generations, before 1970s, don't have Boston accents so they cannot relate to this name, and those with Boston accents would just find the name cheesy. ]]> 2022-09-28 00:52:27 UTC https://padlet.com/natlima9/natlima9/wish/2316548235 natlima9 https://padlet.com/natlima9/natlima9/wish/2328423632 I'm from Boston, and many people in the newer generation (below the age of 50ish) don't typically have a traditional "Boston accent" where the r sound turns into an ahh sound. Nowadays, this vernacular is associated with middle aged middle class people, since there's been a large population influx of people that have moved into the city for work opportunities who do not have this variant. That being said, a lot of middle and high school boys from Boston imitate the speech or if they have a slight variant, over enunciate it to make it sound more pronounced. Although it's typically associated with more working class people, even in rich private schools they do this so they sound more "legit" in a sense, as if they're claiming Boston as their own, since there is a huge stigma around saying you're from Boston when you're from the middle of Massachusetts or a surrounding state. It's almost like they're doing it because they're trying to say they're more of a Bostonian than others who do not have the variant. I feel like to those who are not from Boston, this can work because they'll believe they truly do speak with that variant but when you're from Boston it's almost a known fact that they're over enunciating to get their point across. Those boys want to sound like they're from a working class traditional Boston family, even if other's might look down on those people, because they want to represent their city pride. ]]> 2022-10-06 00:05:30 UTC https://padlet.com/natlima9/natlima9/wish/2328423632 natlima9 https://padlet.com/natlima9/natlima9/wish/2347509401 Stage 1 update:
I have chosen the topic of greetings so I'll be looking at how people greet each other and how it depends on whether they know each other/their age. As of today, Wednesday October 19, I have 35 tokens. I went to a cafe yesterday and was able to collect about 25 tokens. I'm most likely going to keep going to busy cafes to collect data and also eavesdropping on people in class when they walk in and greet their friends. ]]> 2022-10-19 17:36:14 UTC https://padlet.com/natlima9/natlima9/wish/2347509401 natlima9 https://padlet.com/natlima9/natlima9/wish/2358548677 Stage 2 update:
I currently only have 50 tokens as of right now. I plan on going to a cafe Thursday for a couple of hours and getting up to 70 tokens, then Friday after class another cafe and I'll get 30 tokens. Then most likely Sunday I will go to another cafe and get the last 20 tokens. ]]> 2022-10-27 06:18:07 UTC https://padlet.com/natlima9/natlima9/wish/2358548677 natlima9 https://padlet.com/natlima9/natlima9/wish/2368020524 This blog post talks about the word like, and how women are more likely to use like than men are. It goes on to explain the reasoning for this being that women need to be as clear and concise as possible when speaking so that they aren't looked down on because they are already at a disadvantage. The word like allows people to carefully consider the next part of their sentence and elaborate on their thoughts to reach an educated conclusion. This can be mostly associated with dominance model, but the way the article describes it is as if women need to keep using the word like in their sentences in order to assert their dominance. The dominance model proposes that men are naturally more dominant than women and women seek the validation of men. Using the word like is women trying to prove their credibility to men by being able to further explain their thoughts and sound as educated and knowledgable as possible. This example is a lexical feature because it's about a certain vocabulary being added by women in order to feel heard. Although qualitative evidence  isn't used much, there is personal experience and some numbers backing up which sex uses the word more which is linked to studies conducted to get those numbers. 
I believe this article isn't biased and provides evidence with personal experience most women can relate to. Although there is a negative connotation with the word like, it explains why we use it and why it should be continued to be used in order to sort of counteract the dominance model because women are trying to assert their dominance. ]]> 2022-11-03 07:52:07 UTC https://padlet.com/natlima9/natlima9/wish/2368020524 natlima9 https://padlet.com/natlima9/natlima9/wish/2368063875 This published article talks about the prevalence of vocal fry on women and how they are targeted and judged for it. This is a phonological feature because the way they say words is what changes from men to women. I would say this behavior is associated with the difference model. It is society that is bringing down women for how they talk. This article mentions how vocal fry is used as a method of women trying to assert their dominance by trying to make a deeper than natural voice. This, similar to the feature that was mentioned before, is sort of like counteracting the dominance theory. Since deeper voices are more associated with men, women are trying to receive the same level of respect and believe that in order to get that they have to imitate men's speech. Since the authority has been placed to men, and how they speak, women try to take the authority back by speaking in deeper voices resulting in a vocal fry. There is no qualitative data but it talks about how vocal fry is seen more in millennials. The way the article is written makes it seem like they are against vocal fries because they kept emphasizing that millennials are the only ones who better understand other millennials are their points are not getting across the way it is intended to be. ]]> 2022-11-03 08:31:43 UTC https://padlet.com/natlima9/natlima9/wish/2368063875 natlima9 https://padlet.com/natlima9/natlima9/wish/2387590369 The hands in a praise motion serves as a phatic communication function. The emojis is phatic and not expressive because it is acknowledging the emotions of another person, and not the users. People usually use it when giving their condolences or supporting one another. It's expressing the concern for the well being of another. It is also used to give praise/congratulate. I am using one of Cher's tweets regarding the war in Ukraine. I believe she is using it in a way that she is giving her condolences to Ukraine for the war but also praising them for being strong, fighting back, and not giving up. I would say this is used successfully because it makes sense in the way she is using it and it doesn't feel out of place or wrong. ]]> 2022-11-17 02:28:34 UTC https://padlet.com/natlima9/natlima9/wish/2387590369 natlima9 https://padlet.com/natlima9/natlima9/wish/2387776923 I will argue that the clown emoji serves as an expressive communication function. In the text message I am giving as an example said by my friend, it is a way of showing that she feels foolish. She said that she's paying tuition to be taught, but her professors aren't putting in the effort to teach and make sure everyone understands the topic correctly. She sends the clown emoji as a way of expressing how dumb she feels paying all that money and feeling as though it is not worth it. I feel like unless it's a younger generation, or people who are aware of obscure emoji uses, that emoji would not make sense because this usage for the emoji is a little more unclear/less obvious than the one I chose before, the hands in praise motion. But, because my generation did grow up with emojis, it does make sense to me therefore it is successful in how she is trying to portray her emotions. ]]> 2022-11-17 06:02:49 UTC https://padlet.com/natlima9/natlima9/wish/2387776923 natlima9 https://padlet.com/natlima9/natlima9/wish/2387783423 The skull emoji, in this example here, is being used as a referential communication function. In this meme that went viral a few years ago, it shows a text between a parent and a child, with the parent telling their child their uncle died, then using the skull emoji to explain the death, because you know, death and skulls correlate. The parent is using the emoji to provide information. But, in slang, the skull emoji does not mean death. It is used when something is really funny, like you died laughing. So in this case, the point across was unsuccessful because it isn't used in that context. The parent is unaware that they essentially used a emoji usually used as an expressive function, to signify that something is funny, in a serious manner. ]]> 2022-11-17 06:11:51 UTC https://padlet.com/natlima9/natlima9/wish/2387783423