Login

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

March 28, 2024, 08:06:49 pm

Author Topic: Odd little question :)  (Read 3148 times)  Share 

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

cara.mel

  • Guest
Odd little question :)
« on: October 30, 2007, 09:31:55 am »
0
You know how recently on the telly (I'm not sure if it's still on any more) there was this Subway ad where these 2 American guys are in some fast food drive-through and they order things like blubber and love handles? How do you spell all the other words they use in that ad (I really don't have a clue what the girl is saying xD (something about her thighs and butt? =/))

Just because that ad is a good example about how with some americanisms trying to enter our language we go 'ewww nty kthxbye get out of our bloody country' etc :P
And there's no english language forum yet so this is the closest place to put it xD

Oh and also, as a side-thought: If I put up some of my english language essays, would some of you english whiz-kids be able to give me a number for them (I don't mind if you use the normal english system of /10, rather than /15) Just because I pretty much never get feedback in number format and I want to know if my aims are realistic :P

ninwa

  • Great Wonder of ATAR Notes
  • *******
  • Posts: 8267
  • Respect: +1021
Odd little question :)
« Reply #1 on: October 30, 2007, 12:53:17 pm »
0
hey Mel hehe

Think it was "thunder thighs" .... no idea about the butt one.

I'll read your essays for you if you want  :)

Pfft at eng lang and its /15 scoring :p
ExamPro enquiries to [email protected]

cara.mel

  • Guest
Odd little question :)
« Reply #2 on: October 30, 2007, 01:41:58 pm »
0
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 =)

pepsi

  • Victorian
  • Trailblazer
  • *
  • Posts: 38
  • Respect: +1
Odd little question :)
« Reply #3 on: October 30, 2007, 03:51:08 pm »
0
holly crap, my school dont offer english language as a subject but woooow that was an interesting read!!! LOL!!

its my first time reading an english language essay and it was really goood and enjoyable! (even though i dont know how its marked!)

do you have to research it in advance for ur argument?

cara.mel

  • Guest
Odd little question :)
« Reply #4 on: October 30, 2007, 05:02:04 pm »
0
Thanks :)

Technically we don't have to research anything. We learn things based off broad ideas (eg all that, plus jargon and slang, plus a big amount about aussie english and influences on it, notions of a standard english etc)
The main challenge is to come up with examples other than those in the Heinemann English Language textbook. That mainly involves just learning what your teachers tell you, watching the telly etc (eg summer heights high was good xD)
So instead of memorising quotes, we memorise examples. Only main difference really.

brendan

  • Guest
Odd little question :)
« Reply #5 on: October 30, 2007, 05:30:57 pm »
0
"exercise power and authority in contemporary Australian society?"

"the ability for users to exert power over others, and hence control them."

It would be true to say that language has the ability to convince and persuade. However, to suggest that the use of language itself as having the capacity to control and coerce others is not only fundamentally wrong but absurdly dangerous.

ninwa

  • Great Wonder of ATAR Notes
  • *******
  • Posts: 8267
  • Respect: +1021
Odd little question :)
« Reply #6 on: October 30, 2007, 06:32:27 pm »
0
Quote from: "brendan"
"exercise power and authority in contemporary Australian society?"

"the ability for users to exert power over others, and hence control them."

It would be true to say that language has the ability to convince and persuade. However, to suggest that the use of language as having the capacity to control and coerce others is not only fundamentally wrong but absurdly dangerous.


*cough 1984 :P*



Mel that's a really good essay! You ALMOST made me admit english language can be interesting  :o good job  :P
ExamPro enquiries to [email protected]

cara.mel

  • Guest
Odd little question :)
« Reply #7 on: October 30, 2007, 06:42:45 pm »
0
Thanks nina ^_^
What *is* 1984 about, anyway :P
All I know is that part of it has *something* to do with controlling others with language, and they have this newspeak which they tell us is a kind of double-speak, but I don't see how 'doubleplusungood' is double-speak. Meh oh well =P
I miss reading things from english :(

Some parts of Language are real crap though. Eg there was 2 marks last year for working out what part of speech 'water' was in sentences from the text. Like 'people cannot water their gardens between x am and y pm' and a lot of people still managed to put noun =/
Unit 3 has all the interesting junk ^_^ unit 1 and 4 are the boring 'lets learn metalanguage!' ones

choc_bananas

  • Victorian
  • Forum Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 93
  • Respect: 0
Odd little question :)
« Reply #8 on: October 30, 2007, 06:48:23 pm »
0
Quote from: "ninwa"


*cough 1984 :P*



exactly what I was thinking..
b]History is the only laboratory we have in which to test the consequences of thought.[/b]
 - Etienne Gilson

Collin Li

  • VCE Tutor
  • Victorian
  • ATAR Notes Legend
  • *******
  • Posts: 4957
  • Respect: +17
Odd little question :)
« Reply #9 on: October 30, 2007, 06:52:13 pm »
0
Language has no power to "control" per se, but I do agree it can persuade and sometimes be misleading. To claim language can control implies that speech should be limited, and it ultimately contends free speech should be regulated. Therefore, I think this is a dangerous conclusion to rest at.

1984 warns against the deliberate euphemisms of language, and Orwell was extremely wary of the rhetorical techniques used by the totalitarians (and was highly resentful of authority). However, he would hate to have his ideas misconstrued as a bulwark against free speech, and he would definitely disagree with the notion that language can control, because ultimately the listener still maintains his choice and individual critical thought. Instead, Orwell attempts to promote awareness and a questioning of language used (particularly from authority).

ninwa

  • Great Wonder of ATAR Notes
  • *******
  • Posts: 8267
  • Respect: +1021
Odd little question :)
« Reply #10 on: October 30, 2007, 07:01:03 pm »
0
Hmm. I think in 1984, the Party destroys more and more words in the language, getting rid of those "shades of meaning", because it wants ultimately to eliminate unorthodoxy by making it impossible, since once Newspeak was fully implemented, the people wouldn't even have to language available to commit thoughtcrime.

The Party doesn't regulate free speech; it destroys the language which make it possible.

That's why I disagree with the fact that language can't be used to control people. I think 1984 shows that it can.

Gosh I love that book  :P
ExamPro enquiries to [email protected]

Collin Li

  • VCE Tutor
  • Victorian
  • ATAR Notes Legend
  • *******
  • Posts: 4957
  • Respect: +17
Odd little question :)
« Reply #11 on: October 30, 2007, 07:05:59 pm »
0
Quote from: "ninwa"
Hmm. I think in 1984, the Party destroys more and more words in the language, getting rid of those "shades of meaning", because it wants ultimately to eliminate unorthodoxy by making it impossible, since once Newspeak was fully implemented, the people wouldn't even have to language available to commit thoughtcrime.

The Party doesn't regulate free speech; it destroys the language which make it possible.

That's why I disagree with the fact that language can't be used to control people. I think 1984 shows that it can.

Gosh I love that book  :P


Uhh.. I think the "controlling" clearly comes from the authoritarian government that restricts free speech in the first place. Obviously if you restrict free speech (e.g: do not allow languages to include certain words) you will control the populace. Instead, I have a problem with implying that language by itself can have an effect of control, such a notion is dangerous and self-defeating to our common belief in free-speech.

It is apparent the society does regulate free speech. Firstly, they have a monopoly on the dictionary. This is a state-sanctioned government monopoly that clearly leads to the regulation of free-speech. In addition to this, they also rigourously censor the newspapers in Oceania, so I don't think it can be denied that there is a regulation of free speech in 1984.

edit; haha, your binary Sudoku has wayyyyy too much information. Why give out an entire row? They only need to give one number. Hell, they could just leave it blank and you'd have a 50% chance of getting the suggested solution, lol.

brendan

  • Guest
Odd little question :)
« Reply #12 on: October 30, 2007, 07:08:28 pm »
0
The confusion of the use of speech as power makes it possible to exploit the people?s rightful cynicism of the arbitary exercise of power and state authority. However, given the liberal principle that state authority must be limited or constrained, to accept the use of language and speech as power or a tool of control, suggests that speech must also be limited and contained. Yet, as long as the speech is not explicitly harmful, any limitation or containment of speech violates the basic principles of individual liberty.

ninwa

  • Great Wonder of ATAR Notes
  • *******
  • Posts: 8267
  • Respect: +1021
Odd little question :)
« Reply #13 on: October 30, 2007, 07:49:27 pm »
0
Quote from: "brendan"
The confusion of the use of speech as power makes it possible to exploit the people?s rightful cynicism of the arbitary exercise of power and state authority. However, given the liberal principle that state authority must be limited or constrained, to accept the use of language and speech as power or a tool of control, suggests that speech must also be limited and contained. Yet, as long as the speech is not explicitly harmful, any limitation or containment of speech violates the basic principles of individual liberty.




.... you've lost me  :(


@ coblin: lol. I suck at sudoku, so binary sudoku is probably the only kind I'm capable of solving
ExamPro enquiries to [email protected]

brendan

  • Guest
Odd little question :)
« Reply #14 on: October 30, 2007, 10:00:08 pm »
0
lol see colin's post