No more smut, filth and obscenity...

...Well, not as much, anyway.

Since my last post on Smut, filth and obscenity...? there have been some interesting developments in the whole 'swearing on the BBC' row. According to this article, there is to be a crack down on the use of 'foul language' following "a review of bad language across the corporation's services".

Commissioned in response to what has come to be known as 'Sachsgate' (nice word formation there), the review comments not only on Jonathan Ross's use of taboo language but also makes the observation that Ross's language is frequently "gratuitous and unnecessarily offensive" and concedes that "it is possible that some language alienates some audiences unnecessarily". Who those audiences are, though, is not necessarily easy to determine - language that, for one person, is gratuitous and offensive might be considered by another person to be harmless and humourous self-expression. The BBC's recently-revised guidelines on offensive language take this point on board.

The guidelines state:

There is no consensus about words that are acceptable, when, and by whom.
Different words cause different degrees of offence in different parts of the
world. So a person's age, sex, education, employment, belief, nationality, and
where they live, all impact on whether or not they might be offended.

They also comment on what constitutes the most offensive language:

Language that causes most offence includes:• sexual swearwords• terms of racist
abuse• terms of sexual and sexist abuse or abuse referring to sexuality•
pejorative terms relating to illness or disabilities• casual or derogatory use
of holy names or religious words and especially in combination with other
offensive language.

As a father of three young children, I'm also relieved to read that the BBC guidelines stipulate that they "do not include any offensive language in pre-school children's programmes or websites (four years and under)". Glad to hear it!! After all, can you imagine Iggle-Piggle shouting the F-word at Macca-Pacca? Or PC Plum branding the youth of Balamory "a load of little s***s"? A little less reassuring, though, is the next line of the guidelines, which states that "We (the BBC) must not include offensive language in programmes or websites made for younger children except in the most exceptional circumstances". Except in the most exceptional circumstances??? I dread to think what that might mean...

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!).

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.