LG1106 Meaning in Interaction: Assignment Brief (Please read before starting the assignment) Assignments are marked anonymously. Do not include your name anywhere in the assignment, including the filename when submitting via TurnItIn. The goal of the assignment is not to identify all instances of relevant features, but to demonstrate the ability to apply the analysis to the interpretation of the text. For each question, you need to provide an analysis commentary, i.e. explain how the identified linguistic features affect the interpretation of the text. You have 700 words per question, which includes the examples from the text and your own commentary. In total, the whole assignment should be around 2,000 words (plus or minus up to 10%, i.e. 1,800 – 2,200 words). You do not need to cite any literature, but simply present your own analysis using the frameworks taught in class. You do not need to include the whole extracts provided in the brief in your assignment. Just include the relevant examples in your answers. However, simply copying examples from the extract will not suffice as the answer to the question. You must correctly identify and categorise each feature and discuss the effect it has on the interpretation of the text. When starting a new answer, start on a new page and provide a title (or copy the question as the title) to make it clear which question you are answering. Answer the questions using formal written academic English. Use standard fonts (Arial, Calibri, Times New Roman) size 11-12 and double spacing. Add page numbers. You must work independently on this assignment. The submission must be your own original work. Plagiarism means copying of other people’s wording without properly acknowledging the source. If you use wording from a source without making it clear that these are somebody else’s words, you are plagiarising, even if you do not intend to deceive. Plagiarism is dishonest and not acceptable. Plagiarism will be investigated according to the academic integrity policy described in the UCLan assessment handbook. Your assignments cannot substantially reproduce work already submitted for other modules, nor can work for one assignment in this module substantially reproduce work submitted for another assignment in this module or in other modules. 1. Order the sentences to re-create the original text. Present clear arguments considering coherence, cohesion, and genre structure to support the arguments why the sentences should follow the specific order you suggested. Prisons in punitive systems are typically more crowded and offer fewer programs for personal development. Countries like Norway epitomize the rehabilitative approach, with facilities designed to mimic normal life as much as possible. Inmates have access to extensive educational and vocational training programs, which are considered integral to the rehabilitation process. Advocates for rehabilitative systems argue that these not only prevent future crimes but also reduce the overall cost of the criminal justice system by decreasing the number of repeat offenders. Rehabilitative models focus on reforming offenders through education, psychological support, and skill development, aiming to reintegrate them into society as productive citizens. The debate between rehabilitative and punitive approaches in penal systems continues, with ongoing research and societal values shaping the evolving practices. Conversely, the United States is often cited as an example of a punitive system, where long prison sentences and a focus on incarceration over rehabilitation prevail. These systems often feature individualized treatment plans that address the underlying causes of criminal behaviour, such as substance abuse or lack of education. On the other hand, supporters of punitive systems believe that stringent penalties serve as a powerful deterrent and that certain crimes warrant severe punishment. The emphasis is on respect and human dignity, which is reflected in lower recidivism rates compared to countries with more punitive systems. The global landscape of penal systems presents a dichotomy primarily characterized by rehabilitative and punitive approaches. Critics argue that such an environment fosters recidivism rather than reform. Despite high incarceration rates, this approach has not significantly decreased crime rates, and recidivism remains high. As countries observe the outcomes in nations like Norway, there is a growing interest in potentially adopting more rehabilitative strategies, especially in the context of minor offenses and non-violent criminals. In contrast, punitive models prioritize deterrence and retribution, imposing harsh sentences to discourage criminal behaviour and to satisfy societal demands for justice. 2. Identify and categorise instances of transitivity and modality in the following extract and discuss any patterns the identified linguistic features occur in. (full text by Nigel Biggar for Coffee House column in The Spectator, 22 September 2021) Kemi Badenoch is right about colonialism Kemi Badenoch, the equalities minister (and, now, for Levelling Up) has come under attack for an off-hand remark she made on colonialism some years ago. In a leaked WhatsApp exchange, according to VICE World News, Badenoch wrote, ‘I don’t care about colonialism because [I] know what we were doing before colonialism got there. They came in and just made a different bunch of winners.’ What did she mean? The reporter from VICE offers an interpretation: ‘The British Empire and its European counterparts believed in the superiority of white people, and indigenous groups experienced extreme exclusion, displacement and violence in order for the British to take control.’ And the source of the leak, Funmi Adebayo, founding CEO of the Black Monologues, justified sharing the messages by arguing that someone ‘with this level of ignorance, who doesn’t understand the history’ shouldn’t be given responsibility for managing international relations, given Badenoch’s additional Foreign Office portfolio. In fact, Badenoch – who grew up in Nigeria – has a far better grasp of Africa and its history than her critics. She is clearly referring to the fact that centuries before European colonisers arrived, Africans were enslaving other Africans, mostly by capturing them in wars and raids, and sometimes taking them instead of debt. Often slaves were destined for profitable export, first to Roman markets and then to Arab ones. But they also had their local uses, which included supplying victims for human sacrifices. Such sacrifices served a variety of purposes: sometimes to appease the gods, but more often to supply a deceased master with servants in the afterlife, to make a conspicuous display of extravagant wealth, and to intimidate onlookers. Although wives, favourites, women, and foreigners were liable to serve as victims, slaves were the main source. Commonly, their fate was to be buried alive. What’s more, while the British did follow Arabs and Africans into the slave trade, they were the first to repent of it — and of the ugly racism behind it. The British Empire was the first major power in the history of the world to abolish the slave trade and slavery in the name of a Christian conviction of the fundamental equality of all human races under God. In the last quarter of the 18th century, anti-slavery sentiment flourished widely among English Dissenters or Non-Conformists — especially the Quakers — and the Methodist or Evangelical wing of the Church of England. John Wesley prefaced his Thoughts upon Slavery (1774) with a quotation of the Book of Genesis: ‘And the Lord said — What hast thou done? The voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto me from the ground.’ The context is Cain’s murder of his brother Abel and the implication is clear: African and Englishman, slave and master, are brothers, common children of the same God. This was the racially egalitarian view that triumphed in 1807 when the British parliament voted to abolish the slave trade throughout the Empire, and again in 1833, when it voted to abolish the institution of slavery altogether. Then, from 1807 and throughout the second half of its existence until the 1960s, the Empire committed to suppressing the trade and its institution across the world — from Brazil, across Africa, to India and Malaysia. At one point, the Royal Navy was using more than 13 per cent of total manpower to suppressing slave trading between west Africa and the Americas. According to the American scholars of international relations Chaim Kaufmann and Robert Pape, Britain’s effort to suppress the Atlantic trade (alone) in 1807-67 was ‘the most expensive example [of costly international moral action] recorded in modern history.’ Badenoch is quite correct: the British did not invent slavery and Africans were deeply involved in it long before Europeans landed on their coasts. And sometimes when the British inflicted imperial violence on indigenous people, they did so in order to liberate indigenous slaves from indigenous slavers. 3. Identify instances of presuppositions and nominalisations and discuss how they affect the interpretation of the following text. (an extract from Haworth, K. (2017). The discursive construction of evidence in police interviews: Case study of a rape suspect. Applied Linguistics, 38(2), 194–214.) The discursive influence of an interviewer over an interviewee’s turns has long been recognized in a variety of contexts (Greatbatch 1988), as have the asymmetric power relations in such institutional encounters (Fairclough 1989). It is therefore perhaps not surprising that research on police–suspect interviews has tended to reveal something of a ‘prosecution bias’, with interviews focusing on the interviewers’ prosecution-driven agenda to the detriment of the interviewee (Auburn et al. 1995; Heydon 2005: 116ff). However, in one interview analysed as part of a wider project (Haworth 2009), something different occurs. Here there is a distinct shift in interviewer discursive behaviour, and the interview correspondingly shifts from building a prosecution case to pursuing and actively shaping a defence account. This interview is with a man accused of rape, and the case against him was subsequently dropped. Through detailed analysis of this interview, this article seeks to make the following contributions. First, it builds on the existing literature by not only demonstrating the discursive influence of police interviewers over interviewees’ accounts, but also highlighting the potential legal ramifications by focusing on the construction of one key evidential aspect of a case. Secondly, the existence of this ‘opposite’ case lends weight to the hypothesis that interviewer agendas are strongly determinative of interview outcomes in terms of the evidential account produced, while making the important new contribution of showing that this is not simply a case of police interviewers being inevitably prosecution-focused. Thirdly, it is hoped to provoke further investigation into the significance of interviewer discursive influence in cases where consent is at issue. In such cases, participants’ accounts are often the only available evidence, hence the even greater significance of this influence. The fact that this case study reveals a ‘defence bias’ in an interview with a rape suspect may, of course, be coincidental. However, it correlates worryingly with statistics showing that in England and Wales (E&W), despite a rise in reporting rates, the number of rape allegations which the police pass to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is falling.1 There is therefore currently renewed focus on the police institutional processes which lead to so many cases being dropped at this stage of the criminal justice process.2 This article seeks to demonstrate the potential for detailed linguistic analysis of interview discourse to make a meaningful contribution regarding this pressing social issue. 2