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.

The writing's on the wall...

...OK, it's actually on paper, but that doesn't quite work as a blog post title, so you'll just have to give me some slack on this one.

I've always imagined the world of Forensic Linguistics to be an exciting one, but it's an area that I've never really had the opportunity to look into in much detail - until now. In doing one of my usual net-trawls for interesting stuff to post on this blog, I came across this article. It reports on the work of researchers at the Centre for Forensic Linguistics at Aston University, who have been carrying out detailed studies of the language used in hate mail. One of these linguists, Dr Tim Grant, comments in the article on the way in which his team have come to the conclusion that the 57 letters they have been studying could have been written by a woman. They have based this hypothesis on a range of observations about the language used within the letters, much of which conforms to what many linguists consider to be female linguistic traits. Dr Grant's comments contribute significantly to the debates that we've been having in A2 English Language about gender variation :

He said: "One of the things that were striking about the letters was the heavy use of expressive adjectives, which is more typical of women than men. You could say women use more adjectives because they can be more socially evaluative but we don't look at why rather than how the two different groups behave. We just know that's the case because we read a lot of letters and make statistical correlations. The words (in the letters) used were things like 'squalor', 'dirty' and some sexual adjectives which were suggestive of women's writing. Another thing we know is that women tend to use fewer first person pronouns, such as 'I'."

This line of argument of course flies in the face of some of the most recent observations on gender variation made by the likes of Deborah Cameron (who argues that the supposed differences between male and female linguistic behaviour are nothing more than myth). It'll be interesting to see if the boffins at Aston Uni turn out to be right...

If you want to find out more about the work of the Centre for Forensic Linguistics, then take a look at their website.

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.

WELCOME...

...and congratulations on choosing to take the most exciting*, useful** and just plain excellent*** A level course known to human beings. 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 aspects of English Language and that will support your learning. The blog is updated by members of the English Language team on a regular basis, so please do log in as frequently as possible. 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. 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 Jason, Nicky or Tracey at jjones@strodes.ac.uk, nwhillans@strodes.ac.uk or telliott@strodes.ac.uk and we'll post it up.

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

Accentuate the positive (or negative...)

With regional variation featuring as a significant element of the ENA5 Language Variation and Change paper and a possible focus of the ENA6 Language Debates paper, two articles on attitudes towards regional accents and dialects have made a timely appearance in the news media this week.

In the first article an MP from Wearside in the North-East of England argues that negative attitudes towards her accent once lost her a job. This might surprise you, given what we've been saying about the increased popularity of the varieties of the North-East over the past few years, and the article does indeed go on to acknowledge this, pointing out that the negative attitudes which this MP experienced actually occurred 20 years ago. It's a good example of how the fortunes of a regional variety can change in a relatively short period of time.

A separate article in this week's Guardian discusses the use of regional accents in advertising campaigns, observing that not everyone likes to hear their own accents used on TV:

The research clearly shows that the accent used in radio and TV advertising can
have an impact on how the ad is received," said Brian Jenkins, the head of radio
at the COI. "Regional accents can make a difference but not necessarily a
positive one. There was quite a negative reaction from people in Birmingham and
Bristol to their own accents," he said.
Jenkins added respondents in both
cities were "very proud" of the way they spoke, but seem to have been affected
by "other people's perceptions of their accent".

It's well worth reading the full article as it will give you some excellent ammunition when it comes to your exam.