Mind your language... again!

In an earlier post we asked the question "Does it matter what we call things?". This article from today's Guardian goes some way towards answering that question - at least with regard to the language used to describe some specific medical conditions. It's only a short piece, but one of the more interesting points the writer makes is about the use of words like 'schizophrenic' as nouns labelling individuals, rather than as adjectives used to describe their condition. The writer argues that the latter is acceptable, while the former is less so, because it reduces the person concerned to nothing more than a sufferer of their condition, defining them solely in terms of their disability.

You might remember us discussing this very process in class in relation to ethnicity: we talked about the use of adjectives such as 'Chinese' - as in 'Chinese people' - as compared with the generally less acceptable noun 'Chinese', as in 'the Chinese' (or, even more contentious, the use of 'black' as a noun rather than as an adjective). You might think this is 'linguistic pedantry', but it's worth asking yourself whether these subtle differences actually make a difference to people's perceptions of the group or individual being represented. In some cases maybe not... but in other cases I think there is something to be considered here.

War of the words...

...or, more accurately, the words of war. As we begin to move on (in the AS course) to studying the language of political speeches and rhetoric in general, how much more timely could this article in yesterday's Guardian be? The article focuses on the subtle linguistic shifts that are taking place with regard to the ways in which politicians talk about the war in Afghanistan. In line with the ideas about language that we have been considering on the course, the writer comments that "terminology is important because it shapes the thinking". Indeed. And so it is that there is no longer talk of defeating the Taliban; instead the insurgency is dispelled. Have a look at the article for further linguistic nuggets, and if you want to read more on this then have a look at some previous posts on this blog here and here.

The language of conflict... part 2

There's more on the language being used by the two sides in the Gaza conflict in this article. This should be of interest to anyone currently studying representation for AS coursework, and will also crop up when we look at Language and Ideology for Unit 6 of the A2 course.

The Prince and the P-word

If you've been listening to the news this weekend you'll know that there's been a right royal stink-up about Prince Harry's use of a certain ethnicity label. No stranger to controversy - Harry was in trouble a few years ago for dressing as a Nazi at a fancy dress party - the prince has once again demonstrated a degree of linguistic sensitivity at which even his grandfather Prince 'Foot Firmly in Mouth' Phillip would probably wince. In three-year-old video footage that has been leaked to the press, Harry can be heard referring to one of his fellow army cadets as a 'p*ki', and is also cuaght on camera using the racist term 'raghead'.

In Prince Harry's defense a spokesperson said:

'Prince Harry fully understands how offensive this term can be, and is extremely
sorry for any offence his words might cause. However, on this occasion three
years ago, Prince Harry used the term without any malice and as a nickname
about a highly popular member of his platoon. There is no question that
Prince Harry was in any way seeking to insult his friend.'

On the other hand, Khalid Mahmood, MP for Perry Barr in Birmingham, points out that 'this might have been said in a light-hearted manner but ultimately it's offensive to a lot of people'.

You can read the full story here and here, and if you want to have a look at some older articles on the use of this and other racist terms, then take a look at this, this and this. There's also another interesting article here about the use of racist language in the army.

It's a debate we've had many times in class: can racist language ever be acceptable if used as a term of solidarity? Let us know what you think.

The language of conflict

There's a very interesting article that appeared on the BBC News website yesterday focusing on the language that is being used by those involved in the current Gaza conflict. The writer of the article looks at some of the ways in which language is being used in Isreali and Hamas propaganda and considers the impact of words such as occupier, truce and legitimised. An excellent and somewhat sobering demonstration of the powerful role of language in constructing representations.

Obamania!

With the US Presidency safely in his hands earlier today, Barack Obama delivered a victory speech that was crammed full of the kinds of rhetorical devices that we linguists find fascinating (very nice of him too, considering we're just starting rhetoric in our AS English Language classes!).

You can listen to the man himself deliver his speech here, and there's a full transcript here. See how many linguistic devices you can spot (clue: there are lots of them!).

'Custody' battle

A real-life language and representation debate appeared in yesterday's Guardian. The writer of the article discusses the use of the word custody when talking about the responsibility of child care following a divorce or separation. This article demonstrates quite clearly just how significant language can be in terms of influencing people's perception of a given issue.

Language is booming when it comes to the crunch

There's a really good article here about the new terms that have come into the language as a result of the current global financial crisis. As the article says, "tumultuous times change language" and this has certainly been the case with the world banking meltdown. Credit crunch is the most obvious example of linguistic innovation in this area, and the article gives a detailed account of the development of this term. The article as a whole presents an excellent overview of the ways in which language is used by the media to represent this particular issue, including a very useful glossary of 'meltdown lingo'. As such this is a great resource for your AS coursework on Representation and Language.

Advertising dinosaurs of the pre-PC age

Blog entries, eh? Nothing for nearly two weeks and then three come along all at once. Please forgive the dearth of postings of late - I've been a very busy chap.

Anyway, hot on the heels of our recent (AS level) class discussions of the representations of subjects and audiences in adverts, I happened upon this article while scouring the net for tasty morsels. I offer no comments (I wouldn't dare), but I think you'll find them particularly interesting as a window on the way we used to be when it came to gender politics. Prepare to be amazed/infuriated/amused* (*delete as applicable).

Shows potential but lacks the necessary application...

I found this article rather amusing - it's about the language of school reports and how it has changed over the course of the last few hundred years. Charlotte Moore, the writer of the article published in yesterday's Guardian, clearly has her tongue planted firmly in her cheek when she discusses the differences between the language of her 10-year-old son's 21st century report and that of the school reports of the likes of Sir Winston Churchill, Sir Isaac Newton and Sir Stephen Fry (actually Stephen Fry hasn't been given a knighthood, but surely it can only be a matter of time...?).

Putting the article's humorous approach to one side for a moment, though, it does make some important points about language and representation, and about changes in language that can probably be attributed to the PC movement. For 'relaxed', suggests Moore, read 'bone idle', while if your teacher describes your behaviour as 'challenging' it is highly likely that you are considered to be something of a pain in the proverbial. Moore argues that these kinds of linguistic changes have arisen out of schools' fears of litigation, but it's debatable whether such changes in language really change the way people interpret the message. Determinists would, of course, say that they do, while their reflectionist friends would argue that the changes in language are symptomatic of changes in the way in which educationalists think.

Have a look at the article and decide for yourself. You might also want to have a look at some of your own recent school or college reports and have a go at interpreting the language along the lines suggested in the article!

Time to call time on "chav"?

Smells like another language debate is in the air. In an article published in yesterday's Guardian Tom Hampson calls for the word 'chav' to be banned. His argument is that this word is "offensive to a largely voiceless group and – especially when used in normal middle-class conversation or on national TV – it betrays a deep and revealing level of class hatred". He goes on to say that "the common use of the word chav creates a sense that this type of discrimination and stereotyping is acceptable and legitimate", arguing that in fact the word is no less offensive than any number of racist or otherwise bigoted terms that most of us, thankfully, would never even dream of using. Hampson's plea is that we should "not replace the racist or bigoted language of the past with a new set of words that are just as hateful", and that we should, in fact, ban the word 'chav' altogether.

But not everyone agrees with this solution to the problem. In a response to Hampson's article publshed in today's Guardian Unlimited, Zoe Williams argues that banning words like 'chav' is pointless, because this does not address the real issue - i.e. the inherent snobbery amd prejudice that the word reflects. In an attack on the methods adopted by the PC movement in the 1980s and 1990s, Williams says that "the old strategies of striding around, banning bad words, did their job, but have had their day". Expressing what amounts to a reflectionist viewpoint (remember this from Language and Representation?), Zoe Williams is arguing that language reflects our views rather than shaping them (as a determinist would argue), and that the problem is not really the word itself (although she does agree that it's not a very nice word) but the bigoted attitudes of the people who use it.

Why not have your say? Post a comment below, or start a new thread in the VLE discussion forum.

Is modern language a load of hyperbolics?

Someone recently said that modern society has turned into one giant marketing campaign.
OK, nobody has actually said that, but if they had said it then it's almost certain that what they'd have meant by this is precisely what journalist Finton O'Toole argues in today's edition of The Irish Times. In his opinion piece, which you can read here, O'Toole claims that hyperbole is "rampant" in our modern language. Using a rather topical metaphor he refers to this as "the inflation of language, the hyping-up of the ordinary into the extraordinary, the mundane into the epic".

What O'Toole is saying is that we seem to no longer talk about everyday things in neutral terms, but instead we feel the need to 'big everything up'. No longer do we talk about sporting fixtures... instead we see 'epic battles' of 'heroic proportions' between 'the legendary X' and the 'almighty power that is Y'. Whilst the kind of examples that I've just given are really quite harmless, O'Toole does make a point about some arguably (albeit unintentionally) more offensive uses of hyperbole. And although he concludes his argument with the deliberately ironic hyperbolic observation that the use of such language is "horrific, cataclysmic, disastrous and apocalyptic", O'Toole's real - and very serious - conclusion is that "this relentless hyperbole is corrosive". It seems to me that the logic of his argument cannot be contested: if we use all our superlatives up on everyday matters, there won't be any left to use when talking about those events that are truly 'awesome' or public figures who really are 'iconic'.

Far be it from me to try to influence your views, but I have to say that I don't entirely disagree with O'Toole's argument (thought I'd redress the balance with a bit of litotes there...).

What do you think?

Relatively Speaking

A number of interesting articles appeared in the world media last week about some of the consequences of being bilingual. Whilst the study of second language acquisition and use is not part of your AS/A2 course, the issue of language and representation is, and as you know, one of the key theories that helps us to think about the relationship between language and thought is the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis.

If you remember, there are two strands to Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf's thinking: the theory of linguistic determinism suggests that language determines thought, while the theory of linguistic relativity proposes that if language determines thought, then different languages determine thought in different ways. You might recall that Ed 'n' Ben (as I like to think their respective mothers would have called them) cited the Hopi language as an illustration of their theory: Hopi lacks tense constructions, and so Sapir and Whorf argued that Hopi speakers conceived of the notion of time in very different ways from speakers of European languages.

Many linguists have since discredited the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, but this article would seem to offer compelling evidence in support of the theory of linguistic relativity. The article reports on a recent study of bilingual speakers, the results of which suggest that fluent speakers of more than one language have different personalities depending on the language they are using. The academics who carried out the study say that

language can be a cue that activates different culture-specific frames,

which is pretty much the point that Sapir and Whorf were making all those years ago. Interesting stuff...

Yoof slang sucks. End of.

This week's copy of the Huddersfield Daily Examiner (everyone's No.1 local paper) features a letter from a rather disgruntled Mr Dennis R Fisher, who makes some heart-felt observations on the 'state' of modern youth slang.

On the one hand Mr Fisher acknowledges that "language naturally changes and evolves over time", but at the same time he observes that "we are now beginning to sound like a nation of infantile losers and potato heads". At the heart of Mr Fisher's argument, it seems, is his view that the English language is being 'eroded' by a generation of speakers whose desire to be just like their favourite celebreties extends to mimicking their linguistic behaviour.

Have a look at the letter and let us know your views - is the English language being damaged beyond repair, or is this just another stage in its natural evolution? If you have something you'd like to say about this topic, why not post a thread on the VLE discussion forum?