Apprentice and Dragon's Den

Language and Power – Apprentice

Both texts have a similar context, as they are interactions between a highly regarded businessman who is respected by the entrepreneur who is simultaneously trying to gain the respect and money of the businessman. The entrepreneur’s ultimate goal is to ‘win’ to program.

Alan Sugar insists on being called Sir Alan, or Lord Sugar, this is because he has personal power. However, this is not a rule that is explicitly explained, but all of the contestants address him this way as a sign of respect. As they should know that he has more power than them considering his vast amount of experience in the field of business. There is a lot of interruption in the text, and it seems to be the convention that if Sir Alan interrupts on of the candidates then they should stop talking. This does not stop Phillip from challenging Sir Alan when he repeats ‘but we won.’ Which is a direct contradiction to Sir Alan’s claim that it was a ‘fool’s win’ - ‘fools’ has negative connotations that unpin Phillip’s attempt at gaining power and respect. If possible, it gave the opposite effect, meaning that Sir Alan became impatient with him, which leads to the decisive point of ‘if you could come out with something [other than criticism for Lorraine] I might listen to you.’ The mitigated imperative of ‘might’ suggests that Sir Alan is willing to give Phillip another chance but on the condition that he follows the terms previously mentioned.

Phillip tries to gain power over Lorrain in attempt to sway Alan in his favour and so he repeats the phrase ‘she’s trouble’ to emphasise his point, much to Lorraine’s discomfort and Nick who further challenges Phillip by embarrassing him with ‘tell us about pants man’ putting extra emphasis on ‘pants’ by pausing before saying the word.

Juxtaposition in power and dialect

Sir Alan uses informal and non-standard grammar that is unquestioned because of his power. An example being ‘cuz since then you ain’t done that great’ his informalities are not challenged by any of the contestants, because they are not the more powerful participants and therefore do not have the right to do so, especially considering Phillip repeatedly uses the word ‘cannae.’

Language and Power – Dragon’s Den

Deborah Meaden has examples of false starts such as ‘produce we’re producing’ this suggests that she might not be entirely confident in her previous investment, which is aggravated by Peter who asks –rhetorically – ‘have you got something that (.) is better than (.) potentially something Deborah has got up her sleeve?’ This further suggests that there is going to be conflict between the ‘Dragons.’ The show, of course, revolves around the presentation that the entrepreneur and therefore they will be challenged continuously. Peter indirectly asks whether the product is recyclable by saying ‘one great thing about the post-it notes…it’s the fact that it’s…recyclable.’ John wants to appear courteous considering the context and so uses the politeness strategy of ‘thanks, Peter. I appreciate that.’ The use of the first person address makes it seem more personal in attempts to build a relationship with Peter as they could potentially be in business together, where Peter would still be the more powerful participant. John also uses politeness strategy when talking to Deborah despite the fact that she rejected his proposal because it is important for him to appear professional in front of all the Dragons.

Repressive Discourse Features

One way in which this online advert has used repressive discourse strategy is firstly by using a colloquial tone to build a relationship with the reader. They use things like ‘best pals’ and ‘mug of builders’’ by using a friendly tone they are putting themselves on the same level as the reader. If the language used doesn’t seem different from the audience then it could mean they are more likely to donate, or join in with what is being advertised, because it seems more familiar.

Another technique that is subtly exerting power is the litotes of ‘just click here.’ They want the audience to click on their links to get more information. This differs to the oppressive strategy they used at the beginning of the advert by saying ‘order you free event pack’ and ‘download free resources right now.’ The author has, most likely, assumed that if the audience have read to the bottom of the page then they are already likely to be interested in the subject matter so they don’t have to be as harsh with their phrasing.

The advert includes a lot of synthetic personalisation, which is used my to the same effect as the more intimate and colloquial tone – to gain trust and build a relationship with the reader. By addressing the audience with ‘you’ it become more personal. If the advert seems to be speaking to one person, rather than a large group of people, then it may be easier to influence and encourage individuals to take part in their activity. “The money you raise will help us” is a declarative statement which gives the illusion that the reader doesn’t actually have a choice on whether or not they want to raise money. The advert is guaranteeing that people will want to help and raise money. This determination is what makes the advert hard to ignore.

Also the charity uses modality, for example, ‘you can’ which again seems to suggest an optional response. It also widens the audience if they are suggesting that any one is able to hold their own Tea Time. That way people that may have felt like they weren’t able to do it, because they didn’t have the available resources, are more likely to join in and help the campaign. With is only emphasises by the triplets used afterwards ‘anywhere- at home, in the office, your local hall.’