English Language essay submission and marking

[charmanderp]

Might collate all of your essays in here, if you want them to get feedback. Just to make things easier and neater.

---

NOTE: To post in this thread, you'll first need to register an ATAR Notes account. It's free, and should take like four seconds! Then, just scroll down to the bottom of this thread, and ask your questions in the "Quick Reply" box, as shown below.

[pi]

English work submission and marking

This is a place for all English, ESL, English Language and Literature students to post their work for comment and criticism.

[charmanderp]

They never get used for Lit or Eng Lang though Like I've literally never seen anything in there, possibly because people feel out of place or because they know no one goes there with the intention to look at Lit or Eng Lang pieces.

[pi]

That may be true, but I don't think having a single thread is the best way to go about it, it'd be pretty sloppy if it gets popular

[VivaTequila]

So? Subforums?

Just going to throw in that the Literature subforum hardly gets used, so one could make the argument that a subforum dedicated to Literature marking wouldn't be worth it. But I'm also going to throw in that we can't expect people to engage with forums if the resources necessary to facilitate the discussion aren't provided - set up the subforum, and people might begin to use it if the Literature section takes off.

[psyxwar]

Hey so, I've had very little practice this year writing essays so I'm really rusty haha. Any constructive criticism is appreciated.

Topic: "Standard English" is an oxymoron. Discuss.

Spoiler

The very definition of Standard English is murky. As the author of The Oxford Companion to the English Language Tom McArthur puts it: "this widely used term... resists easy definition, but is used as if most educated people nonetheless know precisely what it refers to". Some see it as referring to 'good' or 'correct' English usage, others see it as the most formal and prestigious dialect of English; there is no real consensus amongst linguists. One would think that "Standard English" would refer to a linguistic standard with respect to elements like vocabulary and grammar. The simple fact that this is not the case suggests the very idea of having a standard English is impossible; after all, how can what which is not static be standardised?

English, like all languages enjoying widespread use today,  is dynamic as a consequence of social and cultural change amongst its speakers. Its lexicon in particular has words added and removed at an astounding rate. Words that historically saw use with only a small group of people may receive recognition by the general public due to societal change. An example would be the influx of words brought into the mainstream lexicon by technological advances in recent years; the word e-mail (short for electronic mail) was once used only by the few with access to the Internet, but as Internet usage became more widespread the term gained traction. This highlights not only the dynamic nature of the English lexicon as a whole, but also the fact that it varies between individuals -- what one individual recognises as part of English may not be recognised by another. The phenomena of loan words further illustrates the dynamic nature of the English lexicon.  As England colonised the new world, they discovered new objects for which there was not an equivalent term in English -- so, for the sake of convenience, they adopted foreign terms (eg. coffee).

The semantic meaning of pre-existing words is also in a constant state of change. Narrowing refers to a reduction in the contexts in which a word can appear; that is, its meaning becomes more specific. This happens commonly when a word has associations with taboo, be it through euphemism or due to an application of its original meaning to a taboo context. For example, 'seduce' once meant to lead astray but has since narrowed to a purely sexual sense. Words may also experience complete changes in meaning (semantic shift) -- as with 'gay', which has changed from meaning joyous to homosexual -- or more subtle changes in connotation. The vocabulary of the English language as a whole is never static and thus any attempt to create a standard in this regard is futile; the very nature of language makes this impossible.

 The idea of a standard English becomes even more ridiculous when we consider its many individual dialects. Although the syntax of written English is relatively homogenous (generally following the subject-verb-object sentence structure), this is not necessarily the case with spoken English. For example, "you what, mate?" -- a colloquialism used by speakers in the United Kingdom that means "what did you say" -- does not conform to written English syntax. The different dialects each have their own unique nuances. The English spoken by 'bogans' -- a term unique to Australian English referring to individuals of an unsophisticated background -- differs markedly from the English that would be used in a formal business setting. They would be an obvious difference in regards to lexicon, pronunciation and perhaps even syntax. Profanity may have very different connotations depending on the speaker - the term 'c*nt' has become one of endearment amongst 'bogans', but in a business context would be seen as offensive and completely inappropriate.

A potential counterargument is that the language spoken in a formal setting should be the default simply because it is more refined than alternatives. The truth is that even if we were to pretend that the dialects of English exist in a dichotomy of "formal" and "informal", the idea of championing one variety over another is an undesirable one. Linguistic prescriptivism stunts creativity and prevents the creative use of language. Furthermore, it is not logical to make a dialect 'standard' simply because it is perceived as being the most formal; that is not the purpose of a standard.

"Standard English" is an oxymoron. Its heterogeneous nature means that no two dialects are the same, and that every dialect has its own distinct nuances and grammatical and lexical patterns. Furthermore, change in English as a collective is inevitable, be it in regards to its lexicon or the meanings of individual words. It is simply not possible to prescribe a standard to a language that is so diverse and dynamic.

[lzxnl]

The most blaring thing that sticks out at me is the depth. Each of your paragraphs is tiny, especially the bit on formal language.
I would argue that in a formal environment, a standard of English is necessary to signify the seriousness of the occasion. It would generally be socially inappropriate to use non-Standard English in a formal situation. You're not seeing that aspect of formal language.

With Standard English, NEVER, EVER mention pronunciation. Standard English does not depend on pronunciation; it can be spoken with any accent.

Also, I personally don't like finishing the introduction with a rhetorical question. You are meant to state a contention, not ask the reader to work it out.

Now for the detail. I think your first body paragraph could have went into more detail about "cultural change". You didn't really discuss that in much detail.

As for semantics, sometimes words suddenly gain meanings, like the word "set" with its incredible number of meanings. Consider that too.

Dialects, however, don't address why we can't have a Standard English. Why can they not coexist with Standard English? People often code-switch depending on who they are with. Aborigines who are educated in Standard English may use Standard English when speaking to regular Australians and Aboriginal English when speaking to Aboriginals. It is a form of signalling social identity. Dialects do not necessarily demonstrate why a "Standard English" makes no sense. At least, you haven't convinced me in your paragraph.

And I wouldn't say "dialects of English" existing on a dichotomy. For starters, they're not really "dialects" of English. They're registers. Also, it's not a dichotomy, more of a spectrum. You can have very formal, like a coronation ceremony; moderately formal, like in parliament; casual, like when speaking to a teacher; and intimate, which is a no-brainer.

Just a few of what occurred to me. I hope I'm not sounding overly harsh or something xD

[psyxwar]

The most blaring thing that sticks out at me is the depth. Each of your paragraphs is tiny, especially the bit on formal language.

Fair enough, this was an in class essay though and the word limit was something like 700-800 words

I would argue that in a formal environment, a standard of English is necessary to signify the seriousness of the occasion. It would generally be socially inappropriate to use non-Standard English in a formal situation. You're not seeing that aspect of formal language. With Standard English, NEVER, EVER mention pronunciation. Standard English does not depend on pronunciation; it can be spoken with any accent.

Hmm, don't think my contention was clear enough then. I'm not so much arguing that a standard is nt necessary, rather that it is impossible to really assign a true standard in these regards. I'm arguing that "standard english" as a phrase is oxymoronic because its not possible to assign a standard in all these respects and not so much that the current "Standard English" is not able to serve as a standard with respect to say, pronounciation (I hope this makes sense)

Also, I personally don't like finishing the introduction with a rhetorical question. You are meant to state a contention, not ask the reader to work it out.

Good point.

Now for the detail. I think your first body paragraph could have went into more detail about "cultural change". You didn't really discuss that in much detail.

As for semantics, sometimes words suddenly gain meanings, like the word "set" with its incredible number of meanings. Consider that too.

Yeah I actually had a lot more points I wanted to write in but didn't really have the time. Is it fine for paragraphs to just become a huge block consistent of mainly examples? Trying to fit too much in makes it seem really hard to read coherently.

Dialects, however, don't address why we can't have a Standard English. Why can they not coexist with Standard English? People often code-switch depending on who they are with. Aborigines who are educated in Standard English may use Standard English when speaking to regular Australians and Aboriginal English when speaking to Aboriginals. It is a form of signalling social identity. Dialects do not necessarily demonstrate why a "Standard English" makes no sense. At least, you haven't convinced me in your paragraph.

Perhaps, but on what basis should a language even be assigned the title of a standard? I'm (trying) to contest the notion that the current Standard English is even a standard; I'm not arguing that its bad to have a standard, more so that with so much variation just how is a standard chosen, if not for the sake of its ability to serve as a linguistic standard? We might have a standard english, but its not truly a standard if its assigned this purely due to its formality.

And I wouldn't say "dialects of English" existing on a dichotomy. For starters, they're not really "dialects" of English. They're registers. Also, it's not a dichotomy, more of a spectrum. You can have very formal, like a coronation ceremony; moderately formal, like in parliament; casual, like when speaking to a teacher; and intimate, which is a no-brainer.

Oh, think you misread it. I'm saying they don't, and even if we were to pretend that this was the case, the idea of championing one idea over another is a bad one.

Just a few of what occurred to me. I hope I'm not sounding overly harsh or something xD

THANKS! Really appreciate it man. Nah, it's far better for people to actually look at it critically than to simply go "oh GJ man!" like my teacher does...

Also Vish says hi.

(He's the guy next to me in class right now, I don't think you know him... He just wanted to say hi.)

Edit: what's the distinction between dialect and register? Isn't register a measure of formality?

[lzxnl]

Fair enough, this was an in class essay though and the word limit was something like 700-800 wordsHmm, don't think my contention was clear enough then. I'm not so much arguing that a standard is nt necessary, rather that it is impossible to really assign a true standard in these regards. I'm arguing that "standard english" as a phrase is oxymoronic because its not possible to assign a standard in all these respects and not so much that the current "Standard English" is not able to serve as a standard with respect to say, pronounciation (I hope this makes sense)
Good point.
Yeah I actually had a lot more points I wanted to write in but didn't really have the time. Is it fine for paragraphs to just become a huge block consistent of mainly examples? Trying to fit too much in makes it seem really hard to read coherently.
Perhaps, but on what basis should a language even be assigned the title of a standard? I'm (trying) to contest the notion that the current Standard English is even a standard; I'm not arguing that its bad to have a standard, more so that with so much variation just how is a standard chosen, if not for the sake of its ability to serve as a linguistic standard? We might have a standard english, but its not truly a standard if its assigned this purely due to its formality.
Oh, think you misread it. I'm saying they don't, and even if we were to pretend that this was the case, the idea of championing one idea over another is a bad one.

THANKS! Really appreciate it man. Nah, it's far better for people to actually look at it critically than to simply go "oh GJ man!" like my teacher does...

Also Vish says hi.

(He's the guy next to me in class right now, I don't think you know him... He just wanted to say hi.)

Edit: what's the distinction between dialect and register? Isn't register a measure of formality?

By definition, Standard English is not meant to serve as a standard for pronunciation. You have stuff like Received Pronunciation for that.
If you want to argue down the pronunciation path, that's fine.
Paragraphs aren't meant to be a massive block of examples, but they should at least contain lots of relevant examples with commentary.

You are saying that it is ridiculous to have a standard. Directly quoted from your essay. Just because there is variation, doesn't mean we cannot have a standard. Standard English, as it is, confers overt prestige onto its speakers as it demonstrates education. Other forms of English, while not "standard", have an equally important role in society. I still think that's a problem with your essay. In my mind at least, Standard English has a purpose to enable communication between all English speakers, regardless of geographical origin. But in some cases, we don't need to let everyone understand what we're saying. In those cases, the "standard" form of English isn't necessary. It's like saying that Standard English is a rule, and just because people don't follow the rule, it's absurd.

A dialect is characteristic to a particular social group or geographical region, generally used to denote the latter. A register, on the other hand, is a variety of language used to suit a particular social setting. For instance, you can have formal registers, informal registers, technical registers etc.

Yes, I know you weren't trying to classify language as a dichotomy, but analysing that is sort of irrelevant. Language does not exist as a dichotomy, so why assume it does?

And yeah, I don't know this Vish guy

[psyxwar]

By definition, Standard English is not meant to serve as a standard for pronunciation. You have stuff like Received Pronunciation for that.

True, but I'm not talking about the definition of Standard English, rather what it *should* refer to if we were to define it based on its constiutents "standard" and "English". I'm not sure if this is a logical thing to do, but given the topic was about the phrase itself being oxymoronic I thought it was appropriate. I didn't really talk about pronounciation anyway, so meh, leaving it out wouldn't have made much difference.

Paragraphs aren't meant to be a massive block of examples, but they should at least contain lots of relevant examples with commentary.

I see. Fair enough, thanks.

Just because there is variation, doesn't mean we cannot have a standard.

True. Very true. Yeah that paragraph seems pretty bad in hindsight.

Standard English, as it is, confers overt prestige onto its speakers as it demonstrates education. Other forms of English, while not "standard", have an equally important role in society. I still think that's a problem with your essay. In my mind at least, Standard English has a purpose to enable communication between all English speakers, regardless of geographical origin. But in some cases, we don't need to let everyone understand what we're saying. In those cases, the "standard" form of English isn't necessary. It's like saying that Standard English is a rule, and just because people don't follow the rule, it's absurd.

But again, on what basis is Standard English conferred the title of standard? I understand that Standard English might be useful, but it seems rather arbitrary to assign it the title of standard simple because it is seen as the most formal. If there are so many different versions of the English language then why is one in particular considered standard? I mean, it's not like it is the only version that would be widely understood. I'd think that many would be mutually intelligible for most part - they are still the same language after all, and a varied lexicon or syntax doesn't change this. Sure, there might be some words that are unintelligible, but the same is true with Standard English (eg. words like "trigonometry" may be completely alien to people who haven't done math). Communication between different groups is really possible with any dialect (register?), though subtle differences in meaning may exist/ overtones may be lost (eg. see: "lad")

A dialect is characteristic to a particular social group or geographical region, generally used to denote the latter. A register, on the other hand, is a variety of language used to suit a particular social setting. For instance, you can have formal registers, informal registers, technical registers etc.

Thanks.

Yes, I know you weren't trying to classify language as a dichotomy, but analysing that is sort of irrelevant. Language does not exist as a dichotomy, so why assume it does?

I meant it more in a "the formality of language isn't black and white, so you can't say "oh SE is formal, lets make it the standard!" and even if it was, it's still not desirable due to x,y,z"

[lzxnl]

But again, on what basis is Standard English conferred the title of standard? I understand that Standard English might be useful, but it seems rather arbitrary to assign it the title of standard simple because it is seen as the most formal. If there are so many different versions of the English language then why is one in particular considered standard? I mean, it's not like it is the only version that would be widely understood. I'd think that many would be mutually intelligible for most part - they are still the same language after all, and a varied lexicon or syntax doesn't change this. Sure, there might be some words that are unintelligible, but the same is true with Standard English (eg. words like "trigonometry" may be completely alien to people who haven't done math). Communication between different groups is really possible with any dialect (register?), though subtle differences in meaning may exist/ overtones may be lost (eg. see: "lad")

It's seen as standard because Standard English is the standard of English used in education, government and pretty much all formal settings. Its usage makes the speaker look educated.
It IS the one version that would be most widely understood. Slang is ephemeral and VERY region-specific, while colloquialisms are also rather region-specific. Standard English is the main form of English that is taught to native and non-native speakers of English.
You're speaking of jargon here. The ability of jargon to be alien to some people is one of its purposes in creating group identity.

And I dispute the dialect bit. In Chinese, for instance, a person speaking Cantonese cannot communicate orally with a person who only understands Mandarin. Likewise in English, different regional dialects may contain completely foreign words and pronunciation to hinder communication.

If you meant registers though, yes, communication is generally possible in an informal register; however, society needs formal registers for face needs, to maintain social distance, to maintain an air of credibility and authority as well as to signify the seriousness and formality of the occasion.

[LazyZombie]

It's seen as standard because Standard English is the standard of English used in education, government and pretty much all formal settings. Its usage makes the speaker look educated.

And I dispute the dialect bit. In Chinese, for instance, a person speaking Cantonese cannot communicate orally with a person who only understands Mandarin. Likewise in English, different regional dialects may contain completely foreign words and pronunciation to hinder communication.

I think its debatable as to whether or not cantonese is a whole language itself though.

[lzxnl]

Well, it has the same orthography as Mandarin Chinese (before the movement to simplify characters), while syntactic and lexical variations are not too major. The major difference is the pronunciation, but that does not let it qualify as a separate language in my mind.

[LazyZombie]

Well, it has the same orthography as Mandarin Chinese (before the movement to simplify characters), while syntactic and lexical variations are not too major. The major difference is the pronunciation, but that does not let it qualify as a separate language in my mind.

I'm aware of the differences - It is debatable. My opinion is just that Cantonese being unintelligible to people who speak mandarin exclusively isn't something to undermine psyxwar's argument.
If you applied for a job and could speak them both, you'd list them separately. To me, the fact that people who speak mandarin can't understand it is an argument for it being a separate language. And I did know some people who spoke mandarin only but spent a lot of time at a cantonese church and picked it up fairly quickly.

If cantonese is a dialect, does that mean jamaican patois and singlish are dialects? An actual question, not an argument.

[lzxnl]

I'm aware of the differences - It is debatable. My opinion is just that Cantonese being unintelligible to people who speak mandarin exclusively isn't something to undermine psyxwar's argument.
If you applied for a job and could speak them both, you'd list them separately. To me, the fact that people who speak mandarin can't understand it is an argument for it being a separate language. And I did know some people who spoke mandarin only but spent a lot of time at a cantonese church and picked it up fairly quickly.

If cantonese is a dialect, does that mean jamaican patois and singlish are dialects? An actual question, not an argument.

psyxwar stated earlier that communication should be possible in any dialect and I brought up Cantonese in response to that.
Let's just agree to disagree on this one. Cantonese is still a dialect of Chinese and I don't see that changing too soon.