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.

Representations of young people

With all of the AS groups currently working on Representation and Language, I thought you might find it useful if we were to gather together on this blog some links to texts that construct representations of particular social groups, individuals, issues etc. So, first up: representations of young people.

In the first of these articles, which is primarily about the new Michael Caine film Harry Brown, the writer considers the use of 'the hoodie' as a universal symbol of undesirable or even criminal elements in society. Although this is a text which more or less analyses representation (rather than creating its own representation of young people), the writer makes some interesting points about the ways in which society presents and views members of this age group. The following extract is a good example:

What separates hoodies from the youth cults of previous moral panics – the teddy boys, the mods and rockers, the punks, the ravers have all had their day at the cinema – is that they don't have the pop-cultural weight of the other subcultures, whose members bonded through music, art and customised fashion. Instead, they're defined by their class (perceived as being bottom of the heap) and their social standing (their relationship to society is always seen as being oppositional). Hoodies aren't "kids" or "youngsters" or even "rebels" – in fact, recent research by Women in Journalism on regional and national newspaper reporting of hoodies shows that the word is most commonly interchanged with (in order of popularity) "yob", "thug", "lout" and "scum".

The Women in Journalism article that is referred to in the quotation above contains some really interesting observations on language that relate very closely to the work we've been focusing on in class.

But are media representations of young people always as negative as this? In the first of a number of articles that appeared in the press last year, we see a number of examples of young people being labelled in precisely the way that the writer of the Harry Brown article was talking about. In this article the labels teenager and teen - which in themselves are arguably neutral - are used in collocation with descriptors such as callous and reports that these young people "casually snacked on McDonald's burgers as an 82-year-old driver lay dying with his wife critically injured beside him".

By contrast, this article uses the term teenagers in a much more neutral way, reinforcing the representation with the far more positive label young people. Similarly, in this article and this article the victims of violent attacks are given the neutral label boy, while their attackers are labelled far mroe negatively as youths and gangs.

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.

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).

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!