The Greek Tragedy set the stage for all of the modern day books, movies, and television shows featuring tragic endings due to an error the protagonist, or tragic hero, made. You have most likely already seen or read a tragedy containing a tragic hero without even realizing that the ideas came originally from Aristotle’s theories about tragedy! After fully understanding the Greek Tragedy and tragic hero, you will view a modern-day film that is a tragedy and features a tragic hero. Then, you will examine the film and write an analysis essay that compares and contrasts the tragic hero in your chosen film and the tragic hero in your chosen play from the module (either Oedipus or Antigone). The Tragic Hero Compare and Contrast Essay should answer: How are the two tragic heroes the same? How are the two tragic heroes different?
Before Beginning the Essay:
1. Choose and view a film that is a tragedy and includes a tragic hero
2. Locate evidence in the film that aligns with the elements of a tragedy/tragic hero (you can paraphrase the evidence from the film but remember that paraphrases require citations)
3. Begin crafting a compare/contrast essay
*Remember that in order to receive a passing grade, your essay MUST include specific, cited evidence as detailed in the Research and MLA Module. Essays without specific, cited evidence will not receive a passing grade*
Organizing a Compare/Contrast Essay:
• Thesis: Should include both titles and both authors of the works being compared and contrasted plus the essay topic
o For Example: __________ by ___________ and ____________ by _____________ reveal protagonists with similarities and differences who serve as tragic heroes according to the ideas of Aristotle.
• Organization Option 1: Block Approach
o One paragraph comparing both tragic heroes and the next paragraph contrasting both tragic heroes
o For Example: One body paragraph analyzing the similarities of both tragic heroes and the second paragraph analyzing the differences of both tragic heroes
• Organization Option 2: Point by Point Approach
o One paragraph talking about a point of one tragic hero (such as the tragic flaw) from the first work and the next paragraph talking about the same point (such as the tragic flaw) from the second work (this would include similarities and differences from the first tragic her)
o For Example: One body paragraph analyzing the tragic flaw of the first tragic hero and the next body paragraph analyzing the tragic flaw of the second tragic hero
Proofreading Checklist: Look for the following errors when proofreading
• Spelling errors
• Comma, Semi-Colon, and Colon errors
• MLA format errors
• Fragment and Run-On errors
• Apostrophe errors
Remember the following requirements while polishing the final essay:
• MLA format
• Paragraph form
• Proper thesis statement
• Topic sentences that relate to the thesis statement
• On topic development and transitions
• Evidence that supports claims
• Integrated evidence
• Correct in-text citations
• Analysis of evidence that does not summarize
• Conclusion sentences for each body paragraph
• Conclusion paragraph that does not summarize
• Proper Works Cited page
Submit your completed assignment when finished. For grading criteria, refer to the assessment rubrics included in the sidebar of the course module.
1. Presentation 2. To break down current propensities in Russian varying media interpretation and subtitling in the Russian setting; 3. The idea and elements of Discourse Markers (Well, you know and I mean) in English 4. To construct the corpora and perceive how the Discourse markers 'well', 'you know ' and 'I signify' work in subtitles ( their specifics and capacities) (in the Big Bang hypothesis ( season 1-3)); The Use of the Discourse Markers 'Well', 'You know' and 'I signify' in subtitles and their Russian Translation (in the American TV demonstrate 'The Big Bang Theory'). Setting 1. Introduction 2. The state and improvement of varying media interpretation in the Russian setting. 2.1. The history of Russian film interpretation. 2.2. Film subtitling in Russia. 3. The thought and elements of Discourse Markers in English 3.1. Basic qualities and the utilization of "Well" 3.2. The utilization of "You know" and "I signify" 4. Interpretation methodologies of "You know", "Well" and "I signify" into Russian in the TV arrangement Big Bang Theory. Presentation In this examination paper, I endeavor to exhibit the utilization of Discourse Markers (from now on DMs) "Well", "You know" and "I signify" in subtitles and their Russian counterparts. I will likewise give a knowledge into the historical backdrop of Russian film interpretation and subtitling. With the procedure of globalization and the expanding quantities of outside film creation in Russia, varying media interpretation has turned out to be one of the need thinks about. This point is of current intrigue in light of the fact that the varying media interpretation is a cutting edge subject, it seemed just in the Twentieth century. These days remote, predominantly Western, film-and video items take the greatest piece of the Russian film advertise. American movies and TV arrangement are winding up more mainstream, so there is a need of conveying a quality interpretation to Russian watchers. This is a critical issue, as the quantity of individuals who talk an outside dialect isn't high, however there are increasingly film items that should be interpreted. The most mainstream kind of the AVT in Russia and in Eastern Europe is naming while in Europe, particularly in nations with a few authority dialects, it is subtitling. Subtitling is ending up more utilized as a part of Russia, particularly among English students, that is the reason I will center around this sort of the AVT. The investigation of talk markers has been pulling in a developing number of language specialists. In spite of the fact that there is no efficient examination of the talk markers particularly with regards to subtitling. Talk markers assume a major part in passing on the importance of the expression. Regardless of whether the DMs are believed to be 'good for nothing' as without them the expression has a similar essential significance, these phonetic gadgets can be utilized to oblige the articulation's understanding. The DMs give relevant directions which help in the creation and translation of sound discussion at both nearby and worldwide levels of association (Schiffrin 1988). Etymologists have been focusing on the efficient, semantic and down to earth elements of the distinctive DMs in view of various materials. Brinton (1996) brings up the two utilizations of the DM "well" from the point of view of conversational examination, those of qualifier and casing. Ostman considers the DM you know as down to business molecule. Schiffrin (1987) claims that each DM with the exception of goodness and well has a center importance and contends that a DM has an indexical capacity that can give the logical directions to the specific expression. Fraser (1993) finishes up from the aftereffects of his exploration that DMs have a center importance which isn't reasonable however procedural; their more particular understandings are "consulted by the specific circumstance, both of which are semantic and calculated." According to Blakemore, DMs ought to be examined that how they work as imperatives to the setting from the viewpoint of phonetics, inferring that articulations with same suggestion can have distinctive relevant significance using diverse DMs. The selection of DMs well, I mean and you know for this work is affected by an assortment of reasons. As a matter of first importance, these DMs and their relevant and additional logical highlights have not been contemplated legitimately with regards to subtitling. Also, these DMs are generally utilized as a part of a talked dialect, that is the reason I will endeavor to examine them with regards to the TV arrangement 'The Big Bang Theory'. 'The Big Bang Theory' is an American situational drama on the CBS Network, which portrays the lives of two skilled researchers and their companions. It mirrors the genuine existences of American individuals and contemporary oral English, as in the TV demonstrate the exchanges are as near genuine unconstrained dialect as could reasonably be expected. The primary reason for this work is to investigate the DMs "Well", "You know" and "I signify" in subtitles and to give cases of interpretation into Russian. In like manner, the reason expresses the goals that should be thought about: 1. To break down current inclinations in Russian varying media interpretation; 2. To take a gander at subtitling in the Russian setting; 3. To perceive how the Discourse markers well, you know and I mean work in subtitles and their specifics; 4. To form the corpora; 5. To take a gander at the ways these DMs are exhibited in Russian subtitles; 6. Classification of interpretation systems of the DMs. Book index that can be utilized  A. H. Jucker and Y. Ziv (eds.). 1998. Pragmatics and Beyond (No. 57): Discourse Markers [C). John Benjamins.  Blackmore, Danie. 1992. Understanding Utterances. [M]. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.  Blackmore, Danie. 2002. Pertinence and Linguistic Meaning: the Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  Fraser, Bruce. 1996. Even minded Markers. [J]. Diary ofPragmatics. (6): 167-190.  Fraser, Bruce. 1999. What are Discourse Markers? [J). Diary ofPragmatics. (31): 931-952.  Grice, H.P. 1989. Concentrates in the Way of Words. [M].Cambridge. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.  Halliday, M.A.K. furthermore, R. Hasan. 1976. Union in English. [M] London: Longman. 47-52.
 He, A.W. and Lindsey, B. 1998. You Know as an Information Status Enhancing Devices: Arguments from Language structure and Interaction. [J]. Capacities ofLanguage. (5): 133-155.  http://www.dioenglish.com/wiki/index.php?edition-see 7457-I .  http://www.icoolen.com/film_veido/bigbang_s1eO1. [1 I ] Lenk, Uta. 1998. Talk Markers and Global Coherence in Conversation. [J]. Diary o f Pragmatics, (30): 245-257. (12) Levionson, S. 1983. Pragmatics. [MJ. Cambridge University Press. 34-55.
 Redeker, G. 1991. Survey Article: Linguistic Markers of Discourse Structure. [J]. Semantics. (29): 1139-1172.  Rouchota, V. 1998. Procedural Meaning and Parenthetical Discourse Markers. In Jucker, A.H. and Ziv. Y. (eds). Talk Markers: Descriptions and Theory. Amsterdam: John Banjamins. 97-126. [ 15] Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Talk Markers. [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  Schiffrin. Deborah. 2001. Talk Markers: Language, Meaning and Context. In Schiffrin, D. and D. Tannen (ed.). The Handbook ofDiscourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell. 54-68. (17] Schourup, L. Talk Markers: Tutorial outline. Lingua 1999, (107): 227-238.
 Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. 1986. Importance: Communication and Cognition (1 release) [M]. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
 Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. 1995. Importance: Communication and Cognition (second version) [M]. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
[20) Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. 2004. Importance Theory. [MJ. In L. Hom and G. Ward (eds.). Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell.
 Van Dijk, TeunA. 1979. Down to business Connectives. [J]. Diary ofPragmatics. (31): 447-456.  Verchueren, J. 1999. Understanding Pragmatics. [M). London: Edward Arnold Limited.>GET ANSWER