Thank you Nina I love you
And before this year, Language was clever and took the essays marked out of 15 and adjusted them to a mark out of 40. (this year they have changed it to 30, a number that actually works)
Topic:
Public language is the language of . . . political and business leaders and civil servants ?- official, formal, sometimes elevated language . . . [It] is the language of power and influence . . . Deliberate ambiguities, slides of meaning, obscure, incomprehensible or meaningless words . . .
example 1
I went into a mode of self-preservation (footballer, Fox Footy Channel)
example 2
The inquiry may allow for relevant businesses or industries to be identified and for investigation into the possibility that certain regional or rural areas of the state would be more affected than others. (Don Watson, Death Sentence, the decay of public language)
Starting with the examples above, discuss some of the linguistic features of public language. Refer to at least two of the subsystems in your response. (Edit - the subsystems are phonology, morphology, syntax, discourse, semantics, ignore this it is just put there to remind people to talk about something other than just words)
How are the linguistic features of public language used to exercise power and authority in contemporary Australian society?
(see, they are nice and give us 'stimulus material' so we go on the right track ^_^ and also we have ~50 mins to write them and the aim is 600-800 words)
Language is a powerful tool. One of its many uses is the ability for users to exert power over others, and hence control them. The language in the public domain of contemporary Australian society is often employed for this task. With its lexical and syntactic complexity, double-speak and euphemistic language, or otherwise ambiguous or obscure construction, the use of public language by politicians, businesspeople, the military and other leaders is often incomprehensible. As a result, the public is likely to not understand, to give up and not listen, and ultimately to accept their place ? distanced from those above them due to the people in power's command of a complex, elevated, powerful language.
The language in use in the public domain can be quite linguistically complex, making its audience frustrated it couldn't be put more simply. This is clearly evident in the example of the business inquiry, with the use of the compound-complex structure, synonyms ('regional or rural areas') and modal verbs ('may allow'), leading the reader to wonder what is actually being inquired into. Governments and political leaders can use language in a similar fashion. When a politician is asked, say, their policy regarding climate change, a typical response will begin with 'the environment is very important to us'. This not only effectively sidesteps the question, but also by being obscure, all personal responsibility and commitment has been avoided. In these situations, the audience is likely to become increasingly frustrated, give up trying to seek relevant answers, and eventually blindly accepting of their leadership.
In addition, double-speak and euphemisms can be used to exercise power, by masking the truth of making actions appear to be positive. When the British government introduced a 'community charge' instead of a 'tax', this led to positive connotations of something that everyone is a part of together. When a company wishes to reduce its staff, they will rarely 'fire' or 'retrench' their workers any more, instead labelling the process as 'downsizing', 'cost rationalisation' or seemingly ridiculous phrases such as a 'volume related production schedule adjustment'. Apart from these lengthy noun phrases leaving their audience with no idea as to what has happened, they also remove notions that individual humans are a part of this process, or will be affected. This removal of people from society is also reflected in the recent rise of the suffix '-ise' ? when a person is 'hospitalised', they have somehow changed and are lacking in qualities, whereas if they were 'admitted to hospital', they retain their sense of humanity.
The military's use of language is an excellent example about how they maintain power. Having to deal with taboo, or generally unpopular subjects such as war and death, language is utilised to hide this harsh reality. Phrases such as 'friendly fire' have become so entrenched in our vocabulary, they are the only description of the action we know (often in today's video games, there is an option to switch on/off friendly fire). Other phrases such as 'collateral damage' for 'killing civilians' and 'pre-emptive strike' for 'attacking first' hide the death and suffering war brings, and makes it more acceptable, becoming desensitised to what is really occuring. Combined with propaganda highlighting that 'we' are brave, honest and loyal, and 'they' are cowardly and launch sneak attacks, language here has been used to make the public in agreement with and accepting of what is going on.
Of course, public language in Australian society isn't always successful. As highlighted by the footballer's 'mode of self-preservation', it is clear to the audience this does not match the identity of the footballer, and furthermore does not make any sense. It would have been much clearer to simply state that he rested for a while (assuming that is the actual meaning!). Only when overly complicated language is used in unfamiliar contexts such as this, will people realise how silly and confusing the whole process is, and begin to demand a simpler language more in line with what is found in everyday speech.
The linguistic features of public language are used to obscure meaning, and in the process its users appear in control and dominant. By being indistinct and incomprehensible, its audience will feel distant, excluded, and especially within contexts to which we are constantly exposed to it, will eventually give up trying to understand. This results in leaders knowing they have authority, that people will show blind obedience towards them, and allows them to continue using public language and further cement their authority in our society.
Ta da =)