Final Paper: Why LIN250?

1. Pick three readings that we have covered in the course this semester.
2. Identify some key sentences in each reading.
3. Write a persuasive essay to the President of BMCC in which you argue why students at BMCC should take
   LIN250, focusing on the three readings you have chosen.
   You must include at least 2 quotes from each reading.
   For each of these readings, describe what you learned about them in detail and explain why they are important or relevant to BMCC students. Consider the ways in which the topics of these readings can serve college students.

This final paper is an opportunity for you to review what we have done this semester and for you to synthesize your thoughts about readings that have been particularly meaningful or important to you. Please show me in your essays that you have acquired new knowledge about these topics that have helped you think about the field of criminal justice in a new way. You can also point out the questions you still have about these topics or ideas that these readings have raised in your mind that you hope to learn more about in your future studies or career.

Your final paper should be 3-4 pages. It should be double spaced 12-point Times New Roman Font.

You will be assessed on the following:

1. Content – did you choose 3 readings and fully discuss why each is important or relevant to a BMCC student? Do you have at least 2 quotes for each reading?
2. Organization – does your paper have a beginning, middle and end? Are the paragraphs organized in a logical way?
   Does the paper meet the page requirement (remember this is a Wl course).
3. Style – Is the language of the paper acceptable for a college essay? Be sure to proof your writing for spelling mistakes or unclear sentences. Ask yourself: would it be ok to send this paper as it is written to the President of BMCC?

Use these three words cryptograph,parenthetical, and pseudonym, juridical is another one just incase

I attached two sources, complete the assignment as find 3 other sources

Use the words

exophthalmology, oligarchy, and ambidextrous

Questions attached in photos below. I’ve tried attempting it would be grateful if you could verify my answers.

Purpose of the Week: This session focuses on sociolinguistic variation and mechanisms of language change. Students link micro-level variation to broader linguistic evolution.

Student Task: Students write a 10001200-word analytical paper analysing sociolinguistic data related to variation, Labovian methodology, language contact, grammaticalisation, dialect change, or World Englishes. The paper must analyse authentic data, explain mechanisms of change, and propose future research directions. Each student presents ( do presentation 6 slides simple like you do it before

Purpose of the Week: This session focuses on sociolinguistic variation and mechanisms of language change. Students link micro-level variation to broader linguistic evolution.

Student Task: Students write a 10001200-word analytical paper analysing sociolinguistic data related to variation, Labovian methodology, language contact, grammaticalisation, dialect change, or World Englishes. The paper must analyse authentic data, explain mechanisms of change, and propose future research directions. Each student presents ( do presentation 6 slides simple like you do it before

Purpose of the Week: Students explore major discourse frameworks and apply theory to authentic data. The focus is on analytical rigour and justified interpretation.

Student Task: Students select a framework such as Critical Discourse Analysis, Conversation Analysis, Systemic Functional Linguistics, or pragmatics-based analysis. They write a 10001200-word paper explaining theoretical assumptions and analysing real data. In class, they present about what they wrote about.

Reading 1

Kiesling, Scott F. (2004). Dude. American Speech 79(3): 281305.

Reading 2

Bucholtz, Mary (1999). Why Be Normal? Language in Society 28: 203223.

This week we read two articles that discuss very different cases: young men using the word dude, and teenage girls who identify as nerd girls , but both of them prove the same insight: everyday language does identity work. In both articles, speakers use language not just to communicate information but to position themselves in relation to others, to social norms, and to expectations about gender.

This short writing assignment asks you to put the two readings into conversation with each other.

Both Kiesling and Bucholtz argue that everyday language does identity work. Using one specific example from each article, explain how language is used to either perform or resist a gendered social identity. How are the two cases similar? How are they different?

What Your Response Should Include

Your response should do all of the following:

• Identify one specific linguistic example from each article (e.g., a word, phrase, address term, or pattern of speech) and briefly explain what it is.
• Use at least one concept from each article to analyze your examples. Relevant concepts include: stance, indexicality, address term, discourse of masculinity (Kiesling); community of practice, positive/negative identity practice, hegemonic femininity (Bucholtz).
• Discuss both similarity and difference between the two cases. Think about what the two examples share and where they diverge.
• Write in your own words. You do not need to quote the articles directly, but if you do quote, keep it brief and put it in quotation marks.

Format

Length: 600 words

Format: Typed, double-spaced, 12pt Times New Roman, 1-inch margins

A Few Tips

When you name a concept, briefly explain what it means in your own words before applying it. This shows understanding rather than just name-dropping.

The comparison section can be short. Even two or three sentences noting a meaningful similarity and a meaningful difference will be enough.

There is no single right answer here. The goal is to show that you are thinking carefully about what the authors argue and how their arguments connect

Reading 1

Kiesling, Scott F. (2004). Dude. American Speech 79(3): 281305.

Reading 2

Bucholtz, Mary (1999). Why Be Normal? Language in Society 28: 203223.

This week we read two articles that discuss very different cases: young men using the word dude, and teenage girls who identify as nerd girls , but both of them prove the same insight: everyday language does identity work. In both articles, speakers use language not just to communicate information but to position themselves in relation to others, to social norms, and to expectations about gender.

This short writing assignment asks you to put the two readings into conversation with each other.

Both Kiesling and Bucholtz argue that everyday language does identity work. Using one specific example from each article, explain how language is used to either perform or resist a gendered social identity. How are the two cases similar? How are they different?

What Your Response Should Include

Your response should do all of the following:

• Identify one specific linguistic example from each article (e.g., a word, phrase, address term, or pattern of speech) and briefly explain what it is.
• Use at least one concept from each article to analyze your examples. Relevant concepts include: stance, indexicality, address term, discourse of masculinity (Kiesling); community of practice, positive/negative identity practice, hegemonic femininity (Bucholtz).
• Discuss both similarity and difference between the two cases. Think about what the two examples share and where they diverge.
• Write in your own words. You do not need to quote the articles directly, but if you do quote, keep it brief and put it in quotation marks.

Format

Length: 600 words

Format: Typed, double-spaced, 12pt Times New Roman, 1-inch margins

A Few Tips

When you name a concept, briefly explain what it means in your own words before applying it. This shows understanding rather than just name-dropping.

The comparison section can be short. Even two or three sentences noting a meaningful similarity and a meaningful difference will be enough.

There is no single right answer here. The goal is to show that you are thinking carefully about what the authors argue and how their arguments connect