Smut, filth and obscenity...?

I knew that would get your attention.

There's been a lot of talk about swearing in the media over the last month or so - prompted, of course, by the now-infamous 'Brand and Ross' incident. In case you haven't heard about this (where have you been?!), comedian Russel Brand and presenter Jonathan Ross have both been suspended from the BBC for making 'lewd' telephone calls to actor Andrew Sachs and broadcasting them on Brand's Radio 2 show. This has sparked a huge debate about the 'role' of swearing on the TV and radio, and quite a range of views have been expressed in one forum or another.

The writer of this article calls for a total ban on swearing in the broadcast media, observing that "it's just plain wrong". This view is supported by the writer of this article and, according to this report, by almost two-fifths of TV viewers. And as if it weren't enough that Messrs Ross and Brand have had their knuckles rapped for their bad behaviour, Radio 1 DJ Scott Mills and even the otherwise squeaky-clean Ant and Dec have got in on the act, each prompting their own flood of complaints in response to their 'smutty' language.

On the other hand, the writer of this article argues that there's nothing wrong with swearing, asking "should swearing sometimes be excused for the sake of its artistic merit?" (and answering his own quetsion with a hearty "Flip yeah!").

To look at things from a more academic perspective for a moment, American linguist Steven Pinker has argued that swearing is an inbuilt language characteristic and one which we revert to as a matter of pure instinct. You can listen to what Pinker has to say in YouTube footage here (click on the 'go' button once you've clicked the link), or in a Guardian podcast here.

So what are your views on swearing? Is it ever acceptable? Does it depend on context? Do any of the people expressing the views above have a point, or are they just talking a load of... well, you know what I mean. Post a comment and share your thoughts.

Ch-Ch-Changes

No, this is not a post about the linguistic qualities of David Bowie's lyrics (although that would in itself be an interesting analysis - I offer you "It's on America's tortured brow; Mickey Mouse has grown up a cow" - Life on Mars?. Weird.). But no: instead this is a link to a series of articles that have appeared over the last couple of years focusing on language change and people's attitudes towards such ch-ch-changes. I'm putting this up now because those of you in my A2 class are about to write your first essay on contemporary language change, and these links will be immensely helpful.

First off, there are some excellent articles on general views about language change here, here , here and here. Then there are some items which look more specifically at attitudes to new words and/or phrases here, here and here.

The next two links focus on attitudes towards the use of jargon - here and here. Then there's a whole heap of articles about people's attitudes towards changes caused by the electronic media (texting, email etc.) - here, here, here, here and here. Then there are some stand-alone items on attitudes to language reclamation, people's views on the use of the title Ms, some observations about Political Correctness, and finally some words from broadcaster John Humphrys, who is well known for his views on language use and langauge change.

All very interesting... or, as Mr Bowie would have put it, "strange fascination, fascinating me".

Memoir? Six words? Let me think...

The Books Blog page of the on-line Guardian is currently asking people to send in their own six-word memoirs. "A challenging exercise in linguistic economy", I hear you muse, in a sentence whose words, by chance, number precisely six. "I might have a little go", you continue, becoming ever-more adept at meeting the criteria of the challenge. "It'll test my powers of language", you say, unwittingly sparking controversy over whether the contracted auxiliary verb counts as a word in its own right or is in fact part of the word it is appended to.

Anyway, why not have a go. Add yours to the comments link at the bottom of this post; you could even send one to The Guardian. Here's mine:

"So far, so good. More later..."

At the end of the day it's not rocket science

According to a new book by Jeremy Butterfield of the Oxford English Corpus, phrases like the two that I personally (there's another one) have just used in the title (and now the content) of this post are among the most irritating expressions in the English language. As reported by yesterday's Telegraph, the top ten language sins at this moment in time (there I go again) are:

1 - At the end of the day
2 - Fairly unique
3 - I personally
4 - At this moment in time
5 - With all due respect
6 - Absolutely
7 - It's a nightmare
8 - Shouldn't of
9 - 24/7
10 - It's not rocket science

You can add to that list misuses of the word literally and any number of cliches that are spawned by the world of corporate management (witness to incentivise, to action and synergy). The book's author says that "we grow tired of anything that is repeated too often – an anecdote, a joke, a mannerism – and the same seems to happen with some language." Interesting fuel for a language attitudes debate.

So which cliches of the modern age get up your nose the most? Post a comment and let us know.

Speaking of the cliche 'it's not rocket science', have you ever wondered what actual rocket scientists say when they want to make a point about something not being incredibly difficult? No? Just me then...

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!).