CONGRATULATIONS...

...on choosing to take the most exciting*, useful** and just plain excellent*** A level course known to humankind. We'd just like to take this opportunity to say "welcome" to all our new AS English Language students, and "welcome back" to those of you starting your second year of English Language at Strode's.

The purpose of this blog is to help you to keep up to date with current news articles, websites and other resources that focus on a wide range of topics, issues and debates surrounding the English language in all its forms and uses. Not only will this blog support your learning, but it is also guaranteed to stimulate your curiosity about language and provoke debate and discussion with fellow English Language students, friends and family alike. I often say that there is no such thing as an 'off-duty' English Language student, and you'll find that the links and comments on this blog will open up a whole world of issues in which you will quickly find yourself becoming immersed.

The blog is updated by members of the English Language team on a regular basis (although you might have noticed that there was something of a 'hiatus' last year!), so please do log in as frequently as possible (there's a link to the blog on the AS and A2 English Language VLE sites). If you've got something to say about the issues raised in one of the blog entries, please do feel free to post a comment. You could even start a discussion about the topic on the VLE. Similarly, if you happen to come across an interesting language-related resource/website/news item somewhere and you think other students would benefit from accessing it, then please email the details to your teacher at jjones@strodes.ac.uk, nwhillans@strodes.ac.uk or telliott@strodes.ac.uk and we'll post it up. You'll find that each entry is tagged for the particular aspect(s) or unit(s) of the course to which it relates, which makes it easy for you to search through older posts if you're looking for something in particular.

To get us started for this year, here's a link to an interesting article about modern slang that appeared in The Sun. "What???", I hear you cry, outraged, "An English teacher recommending something written in THE SUN??? Preposterous!". Well, yes, actually. As students of English Language we are interested in language in all its forms and uses, both formal and informal. Much of our work over the two years of the course focuses on what society in general thinks and says about language, and how language is used by a wide range of social groups, and those attitudes and uses can be found in all sorts of places and texts. This article about 'modern' slang is particularly relevant to both AS and A2 at this point in the year, as we begin to look in AS at our own language habits and in A2 at age variation in language.

Enjoy the course!

*probably
**no doubt about this one
***well, we like to think so

Mind your language!

'Does it matter what we call things?'. This is a question that has been occupying us in the Representation and Language part of AS English Language for the last couple of weeks... and much of what we've discussed has led us to conclude that the answer to this question is 'YES!'. As you know, we've been exploring the hypothesis that the langauge we use to represent (or label) something influences our perceptions of that thing. This is a view that seems to be supported by this article that ran in The Financial Times a couple of days ago.

The writer of the article discusses the language that is currently being used by politicians engaging in the debate about government spending cuts. According to a recent survey, voters are more likely to support proposed reductions in spending if they are talked about in terms of 'controls' rather than 'cuts'. This is not just anecdotal either - the survey claims that 76% of people would support 'controls' as an alternative to tak rises, while only 64% favoured 'cuts' over increased taxes. More fool Nick Clegg, then, for his comments about 'savage cuts'! The article goes on to explore some of the other terms being used too.

The issue of linguistic representation has cropped up in another recent article too. In what some might see as something of a regressive move, a new publication of the popular New International Version of the Bible is seeking to move away from some of the gender-neutral language used in the earlier Today's New International Version publication:

For instance, in some cases where original texts were not specific, the TNIV uses "children of God" instead of "sons of God", or "sister and brothers" instead of simply "brothers". Critics of the TNIV call its gender neutral pronouns inaccurate interpretations. However, others say such modifications can be more truthful to scripture's original intent.

The debate surrounds the issues of 'truth' and 'meaning':

One's interpretation of "Truth" may not be as simple as literally translating a text word for word. "People on both sides could argue their translation is more literally accurate," said UT Religious Studies Professor Christine Shepardson. "The difference comes much more so when you're talking about the meaning of the text." The "meaning" of the text refers to the intent of the original authors. "Do you want the most literal translation? In which case, if you're translating the English phrase 'break a leg', then you'll end up with the wrong meaning," Shepardson said. "Or do you want the most accurate meaning of the text? Then you're opening it up to the person's interpretation of that meaning."

It's an interesting argument, the key element of which is the notion that the manipulation of language can alter people's perceptions of meaning and ultimately, perhaps, their view of 'truth'.. and this is what Representation and Language is all about.

LAD plays a part in second language teaching

I've just stumbled across this article that talks about a new method for teaching adults a second language that draws on the nativist theory that we all have an innate capacity for language development. The process outlined mirrors precisely the stages of language development that children go through when acquiring their 'native tongue'.

In theory, there is every reason why this method should work - if learners have already gone through these processes of acquisition as a baby, then it seems reasonable to assume that they will be able to repeat their successes as an adult learning a second language. An interesting idea...

Beckham's accent gets the boot

The language quest of hotel chain Travelodge continues apace this week, as they publish the results of their survey into both the favourite and most loathed accents of British English. In keeping with many such investigations in the past, the accents of areas such as London, Birmingham, Wales (huge generalisation, but don't shoot the messenger) and Liverpool come off the worst, with varieties associated with the north-east and Scotland coming out on top.

What's particularly interesting about these results is the celebrities that are chosen as examples of each variety. London accents are representated by controversial figures such as Amy Winehouse and Lily Allen, and although David Beckham might not be controversial in the strictest sense of the word, he certainly does divide opinion. Wales gets Charlotte Church (generally considered to be rather irritating), Liverpool gets Colleen Rooney (WAG famous for... well, being a WAG), and Birmingham gets Ozzy Osbourne (unique, but not necessarily in a good way). By contrast, Newcastle gets Cheryl Cole as its figurehead (considered to be quite attractive by lots of people), Bolton gets comedian Peter Kay (current media favourite) and Scotland gets Edith Bowman (popular with 'the yoof', I believe).

All of this supports the observations of linguist Howard Giles, who is famous for (among other things) his discussions of the motivations for language attitudes. One of the points he makes is that people's attitudes towards a particular accent are frequently motivated not by the aesthetic qualities of the actual sounds (although this can be significant), but by the things (people, places etc.) with which the accent is associated.

The results of the Travelodge survey are also reported in slightly different ways here, here and here.

txt speak - luv it or h8 it?

There's been a lot of media interest in the language of text messaging recently, not least because of the latest book to be published by David Crystal, one of the UK's leading linguists. In Txting: the gr8 db8 Crystal explores the impact that the language of texting has had on the spelling system of English. This article features a detailed account of some of Crystal's thoughts on the subject. Whether you're an AS student thinking about the language of so-called 'blended', mixed mode electronic texts, or an A2 student focusing on language change and attitudes towards it, this article is a very useful one to read.

War of the words

As the campaign for the American Presidency gathers pace, the candidates and their 'people' are keener than ever to find something - anything - to use as a weapon against their opponents. In the wake of yesterday's outcry about Barack Obama's 'lipstick on a pig' comment comes a fresh accusation of racism against supporters of John McCain.

The argument revolves around the use of the word 'uppity' by two separate Republican politicians in reference to Obama and his wife and to a black news reporter, as reported here. A spokesman for the two Republican politicians argued that they had "simply evoked a word that by definition described [their] demeanor as being superior, arrogant and presumptuous". However, supporters of Obama have been quick to point out that the word has a racially-loaded history and that its use by the Republicans is far from innocuous. This article explains the background to the use of the word:

The phrase “uppity (N-word)” was used to let a black person know he was out
of his “place.” It was used on black people during the civil rights movement, who refused to give up seats on buses and who moved into segregated neighborhoods, as well as black people who used proper English. It was likely the last phrase heard by freedom riders in Mississippi before they were killed and buried in an earthen dam.

Whether or not the Republicans were conscious of this history is unclear. What is clear, though, is that language really is a 'loaded weapon' and should be handled with extreme caution!

it wz me wot dn it lol

Linguists have played an important role in the science of forensics for many years, using their knowledge of the structures and patterns of language use to identify the origins of 'mystery voices', construct pictures of the social background of suspects and even expose falsified written statements. Until recently the forensic linguist's evidence has been mainly in the form of tape recordings and written documents, but this news report explains how linguists are now beginning to focus on the language of electronic media such as text messaging.

The article comments that people "choose their own text language "rules" - which they tend to use throughout all their messages", and explains that it is therefore possible to spot a 'fake' message sent by someone masquerading as someone else (as was proven to have happened in the murder case on which the article focuses). The article goes on to say that "forensic linguists can also build a "sociolinguistic" profile of the author: they can give an idea of a texter's gender or age... women tend to be inter-personal while men make arrangements".

So it would seem that the language of electronic communication varies in the same ways and according to the same factors as spoken language does.

Early signs of language

It is a widely-made observation among language acquisition specialists that babies who are deaf and/or whose parents are deaf frequently sign their first word at a much earlier age than hearing children speak theirs. The average age at which hearing children say their first word is about 12 months, whilst deaf children have been known to make their first meaningful sign as young as 3 months old. According to this article published in today's Sun newspaper that 'record' has now been broken by a two-month-old baby who reportedly makes the sign for 'milk' when she is hungry.

It is not entirely clear why deaf babies generally sign earlier than hearing babies speak, but for my money one of the most plausible arguments centres on issues to do with basic articulation: as a baby having to learn how to control the various parts of your own body, it is arguably far easier to co-ordinate your hands and make meaningful signs than it is to position all of the 'precision apparatus' that makes up your vocal tract (tongue, teeth, lips etc.) and make accurate, meaningful speech sounds.

On the other hand...

In yesterday's Relatively Speaking post I talked about some research that seemed to offer evidence in support of the theory of linguistic relativity. As part of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, this theory makes the assumption that language and thought are inextricably linked and that one cannot exist (in the form that we know it) without the other. The evidence from the study pointed towards the conclusion that language and thought cannot be separated.

Simple enough? Apparently not. An article appearing yesterday on the Wired Science blog network reports on the findings of a recent language study carried out by psychologist Susan Goldwin-Meadow. The study focuses on the translation of simple sentences into hand gestures and observes that speakers of SVO language (those whose sentences follow the order of subject-verb-object - e.g. Bill eats cake) almost universally switch the order to subject-object-verb when communicating with their hands only. So in the example I've just given, someone communicating by gesture would probably point at Bill, then point at cake, then mimic the action of eating. Goldwin-Meadow claims that this suggests "the independence of language from thought". What she's saying is that the structure of language cannot be an immediate product of our thought processes because our gestures almost always fall back on a different structure. This, of course, completely contradicts the conclusions of the study I was discussing in yesterday's blog - but it does support some of the key theories of language acquisition that we're going to be exploring for Unit 6 (ENA6) of the A2 course and in Unit 1 (ENGA1) of the new AS level course. Have a look at the article and see what you think.