How to Write a Graduate Essay

How to Write a Graduate Essay There are several useful essay writing tips for students about how to write a graduate essay. Writing a good graduate essay requires from each student good writing skills,  imagination and patience. Before graduating they have to be succeed in writing any assignments and academic papers. In a graduate essay, we deal with the four parts. Which are Introduction, the Main body, the Conclusion and the Outline. As compare to a school level essay graduate level essay require better words and more comprehensive detail, best quality of writing skills and compact link between paragraphs in the main body are main features of a graduate level essay. Normally, kids at school feel that essay writing is easy, and they can write an essay at any level. However, when they reached the graduation level they poorly failed to write effective essays. Students of a graduate level need to know that at this level they are basically required to write mature level essays. Students of graduation need to search about the subject given to them. They should put some arguments in their essays.In the introduction of the essay, it is important to make a general view of the clause. In the introduction we may also cover a little detail about the plans and the objects of the essay, and what we are going to discuss in the main body. It is of the highest importance for a good essay to have an affective and magnetic introduction as it deals with all the essay body and the main body of the essay depends totally on that paragraph. In the main body, they should discuss the prime topic or subject in relevant detail with proofs and arguments. The graduate essay must focus on all the arguments discussed on the local introduction like a social issue or a debate or a speech. It should be kept in the active mind that the essay should be analysed more critically and examined from all the aspects both the positive and the negative impacts of the certain issue must me discussed in great detail in order to clear the issue stated in the article . Ultimately, the conclusion is the main juice of the essay like the introduction it also bears a vital importance. In the introduction we must include the results. The essay writers opinion either negative or the positive should be stated in that part of the essay. While writing the introduction it must be kept in mind that the discussions stated in the main body should not be ignored and the conclusion must be extracted from the main body. The outline and the key points can be most simply taken as the contents to be discussed in the essay. While choosing the degrees of the outline one must be very careful in order to state al relevant information needed for a graduate essay.

The notion of speech personality Essays

The notion of speech personality Essays The notion of speech personality Paper The notion of speech personality Paper The first reference to speech personality was made by L.Weisgerber. In Russian linguistics the term was introduced in the early 30s by V.V.Vinogradov. In the same period such question was discussed by Humboldtians (L. Weisgerber). Later the notion of speech personality was investigated by a range of prominent scholars, such as Yu.N. Karaulov, V.I. Karasik, O.B. Sirotinina and others. Besides, this problem is interdisciplinary, since it covers the areas traditionally studied not only by linguists, but also by psychologists and psycholinguists. Yu. Karaulov in his monograph Russian Language and Language Personality elaborated his own original methodology of reconstructing speech personality, which he defines as a personality expressed in the language and through the language; it is a combination of abilities and characteristics of a person that stipulates production of speech texts that differ in: a) degree of linguo-structural complexity; b) depth and accuracy of reproducing reality; c) certain purposeful direction. (Tr. V.T.) [1; p.3] He worked out the structure of speech personality which consists of three levels: 1) Zero level verbally semantic level or lexicon. This level represents : units: readiness to nomination, word choice, using another languages lexis, having working knowledge of special terminology; verbal grid: ability to perceive grammar structures, oral and written speech, right spelling; stereotypes: everyday speech, readiness to monolog, patterns and cliches. 2) First level linguo-cognitive level, represented by a thesaurus of speech personality: units: ideas and concepts which are combined in a well organized and systematized world picture of a certain speech personality which reflects his or her values and outlook; thesaurus includes readiness to make modal statement, argue, combine conversational terms and improvise; stereotypes: ability to use inner speech in accordance to transfer the context of others people speech. 3) Second level motivational, pragmatic level reflects pragmaticon of personality, the system of interests and motives etc. of a certain person in the process of communicative activity (communicative roles and spheres) [2; p. 20]. Combination of these three levels of speech personality gives us an opportunity to describe formal means of expression, to investigate the communicative activity and to study speech personality as a whole. However, we should take into consideration that these levels are distinguished hypothetically. In everyday life we observe their diffusion and interdependence. This Karaulovs three-tier structure of speech personality reflects general type of personality which includes such components: 1) moral component system of values and beliefs; 2) culturological component level of cultural awareness; 3) personal component level of individuality [2; p. 123]. Besides the notion of speech personality we also consider the notion of idiolect. A persons idiolect is his or her own personal language, the words they choose and any other features that characterise their speech. The term idiolect is intended to mark the notion of a language which is not the language of a community (sociolect) but rather of an individual, taking into consideration that some people have distinctive features in their language; these would be part of their idiolect, their individual linguistic choices and idiosyncrasies. Every idiolect includes the vocabulary appropriate to a persons various interests and activities, pronunciation which reflects the region in which we live or have lived, and variable styles of speaking that depend on whom we are addressing. It is the way each person groups his/her words or phrases in a sentence to convey a thought. Every speaker has a very rich active vocabulary built up over many years, which differs from the vocabularies of other people not only in terms of actual items but also in preferences for selecting certain items. Consequently, an idiolect is unique to each person, because each of us belongs to different social classes, we all speak a language variety. Thus we can say that the systemic research of verbal communicative behaviour of a person gives an opportunity to reveal speech personality, which in its turn is a clue to revealing personality or individuality as a whole.

The color purple Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

The color purple - Research Paper Example It'd kill your mammy" (1). What Celie is forbidden to articulate publicly is her repeated rape by the man she believes to be her father; this violation of both Celie's body and her voice speaks of an underlying socio-linguistic censorship that relegates the female subject to an objectified position, as passive, absent, and silent. In this paradigm the maternal must be sacrificed if the subject is to speak. The relationship between Celie and Alphonso illustrates this phenomenon, as the paternal interdiction relies upon the premise that if Celie speaks, she is forsaking her "mammy" (1). Celie comes to represent this forced contract between a woman and the Law of the Father, where a female's body, spirit, and speech are sacrificed in an act of socio-symbolic rape; however, as Celie's subversive authorship suggests, it is a sacrifice she is unwilling to make. In her article "Women's Time," Julia Kristeva speaks of the role language plays in violating female subjectivity; she states, "a n ew generation of women is showing that its major social concern has become the socio-symbolic contract as a sacrificial contract, †¦that they are forced to experience this sacrificial contract against their will" (Kristeva’ ‘Women’s Time’ 25). ... e, identification with the sacrificial logic of separation and syntactical sequence at the foundation of language and the social code leads to the rejection of the symbolic--lived as the rejection of the paternal function and ultimately generating psychoses" (Kristeva’ ‘Women’s Time’ 25). The psychoses that Kristeva identifies can be seen as reflecting hysterical discontent, as a conflict of gender that is realized through linguistic disruption. Kristeva posits two possible strategies to counter the exclusion and silence experienced by women: the first, to attempt to possess the symbolic by adopting the dominant ideology; the second, to approach language as a "personal affect experienced when facing it as subject and as a woman" (Kristeva’ ‘Women’s Time’ 24). Such an approach suggests a need to "break the code, to shatter language, to find a specific discourse closer to the body and emotions, to the unnamable repressed by the soci al contract" (Kristeva’ ‘Women’s Time’ 24-25). Kristeva's perspective of language posits a revolt against the exclusion of the symbolic contract. In About Chinese Women, Kristeva identifies women as able "to give a name" to the repressed, as able to restore the body back to a place of significance (Kristeva ‘About Chinese Women’ 30-35). In this context, the body becomes intertwined with Kristeva's notion of the semiotic, as a sort of expression that exists outside of the symbolic, preceding language while simultaneously existing within language, albeit in a repressed form. Semiotic discourse moves beyond the symbolic by opposing structures of exclusion. The mother-child bond becomes the definitive relationship of semiotic discourse, as it exists beyond binary differences of gender and sexuality. When viewed in this