VCE Stuff > VCE English Language

English Language essay submission and marking

<< < (59/64) > >>

technodisney:
I FINALLY GOT MY FIRST ESSAY COMPLETE OUTSIDE OF A SAC!!!!!

I have been procrastinating all year about doing practice essays, and my final SAC is done. But I now have a tutor who is being hard on me and made me do this essay in two days, and I ran out of time as well, so it's not very well done.

My tutor hasn't actually done English Language so she doesn't understand all of the metalanguage and concepts to well (although she is incredibly smart at normal English and is trying to learn).
I am mostly looking for feedback on my use of metalanguage and whether I have used any of it wrong. Anything to do with the general, structure or layout my tutor can help me with.

The topic is "Who upholds the standards of language in modern Australian society? Discuss with reference to the use of standard Australian English and other Varieties"

essayIn today's Australian society there is a massive variety of different varieties of English that are spoken, everything from Standard Australian English to ethnolects like Greeklish and Aboriginal English. There are different people in these different parts of society that uphold a different Standard of English and for different reasons, some put effort into the language to keep it uniform whereas others do without even trying. The teachers uphold the Standard English by making sure everything is taught in a Standard way that everyone understands, some varieties of English in Australia like ethnolects aren't actually upheld by anyone and there are different ways of speaking that are wildly different from each other.

Standard English is the main English that is taught in schools. The teachers job is literally to teach the students the correct way of doing things and that includes in both written and spoken language. "Teachers have to give students access to Standard English to protect them against [] prejudice" is what Kate Burridge said in 2001, it is talking about how people who cannot use standard English properly and use phrases like "I done it" are generally seen as not as educated and therefore less employable by potential employers. However by making sure that schools are properly teaching Standard English it then alienates the children who have learning difficulties, as if they are unable to properly learn Standard English they will be a minority and their lack of English skills will stand out more than if Standard English wasn't properly taught by teachers in schools.

Ethnolects are upheld by the people who speak it and there is no one whose aim is to keep the ethnolect going. Ethnolects are varieties of English that have been formed when a group of people from a culture that doesn't primarily speak English starts living in an English speaking region, this creates a sort of hybrid of the two languages. Ethnolects are mostly just the speakers using different Lexemes from their culture instead of the English ones, although there can be some syntactical differences as well. Because the ethnolects just happened and no one pushed them there is no one upholding these sorts of English, except for of course the families who speak it and pass it on which is of course a form of upholding the language by simply using it.

 There are a few ways of speaking that are considered not as common but they have a community of people upholding them to these standards. These are the people with Broad and Cultivated accents both on the opposite sides of the spectrum. In reference to cultivated accents they are the accents in which the highly educated university professors and similar speak in, they are given a standard which they must adhere to by the people around them and that helps uphold the language. On the other hand of the spectrum however is the people who speak in a very broad accent, they are very distinct in their accent and their sense of community helps them uphold the accent and it isn't a specific person.

Language is upheld by different people in society depending on what the purpose of it is. There is not a single person or group who does and it is a collective effort from all of us. There is a group of people (teachers) who teach us the standard English but otherwise ono specific groups of people actually do.

KeelyR:
Hi, could anyone mark and give me feedback on this essay? :)

Topic: The language you use tells people more about you than you realise. Discuss.

By simply hearing or reading a person's speech, several aspects of their identity can be assumed by an audience and through one's speech components of their identity can be revealed. Using jargon can expose personal sociolinguistic variables like occupation and interests, and provide specific details about them. A person's age can be told by certain lexical choices in their language, and a person's phonological choices can reveal details about where they live. It can be surprising that so many important elements of a person's identity can be exposed through their language.

Jargon can be very useful in expressing expertise and creating and strengthening in-groups as it allows people with similar identities to communicate efficiently and its use can allow people who are not in the in-group to assume aspects of one's identity like their occupation and their interests. As illustrated with Stimulus A, being able to use jargon effectively and correctly is a crucial part of the portrayal of one's identity, as the man in this stimulus was caught in his act of pretending to be a doctor as he mispronounced some basic medical terminology and someone a part of this in-group with medical noticed this which stopped his plan. As this man didn't realise that language can reveal so much of a personal identity, others could figure out the truth. In a radio interview after this year's Women's Basketball World Cup, Australian basketball player Liz Cambage discussed the cup with the radio presenter while using basketball jargon like the verb 'to screen' and plural noun 'rebounds'. These distinct basketball lexemes allow an audience to make an assumption about her occupation and interests as this use of jargon reflects an expertise in this semantic field, if they did not already know who she is. Jargon allows people to gain an insight into these certain aspects of one's identity without intrusion.

Lexical choices play a large role in sharing aspects of a person's identity through their language and they can give details about a person's age as content words offer information to an audience, with their real world meaning. Earlier this year. Radio presenter Alan Jones, aged 70, used the noun phrase 'nigger in the woodpile' and he has used it in the past many times as well as he does not think it is offensive or does not care if he offends people by using it. This lexical choice may reflect his old age as in the past when he was young, racist noun phrases like this may have been more common and not seen as offensive by the public as they today, for instance it would be rare to see or hear a young person in their 30s repeatedly used racist language publicly. However, age can also be assumed through language by the use of archaic lexemes. My grandfather uses lexemes like the adjective 'hoary' and the vocative 'chap' regularly, which reflects his old age as such lexemes are uncommon today. People on the other end of the age spectrum can also be identified by their lexical choices. With the thriving popularity of the internet and social media currently, teenage slang can be very distinctive. When acronyms like 'LOL' and initialisms 'SMH' are used online, it can generally be assumed that the people using it are adolescents. Casual use of vocatives like 'bitch' and 'hoe' also suggest a user of these lexemes to be young as using them is a common way of creating in-groups and decreasing social distance for teenagers, especially in Australia where mateship is often conveyed by profane language use, as using these terms of address can show how close a relationship is when people do not take offence when being called them. As language is always evolving, it is obvious that language use differs between generations, hence it can be easy to know another person's age just by knowing how they use language.

Similarly, a person's phonological choices can expose details of their identity, particularly where they live. In Australia, the 3 different Australian accent; Broad, General, and Cultivated, can commonly be used to show regional variation, as people with Broad accents generally have lived or live in more rural and regional locations in Australia, though this is not always the case. In a Today Show interview, farmer from regional city Bendigo, David Love, was interviewed about a random act of kindness where he performed by paying for an elderly man's food. Love has a distinct Broad Australian accent, with features like elision of final consonants like 'an' instead of 'and', and assimilation of words like 'gotta', which without knowing he was a farmer from Bendigo, a person could likely assume that he lived in a regional area. The reason that this assumption is often true is that often fewer people live in regional areas hence the people who live there are not exposed to as much language variation as those in major cities, where there are usually more people which in turn means more cultural variation. Accents can share an insight into where people have lived and live, but cannot always be generalised.

Language is a key part of a person's identity which is not only used for conscious communication but also unconscious communication of sociolinguistic variables like occupation, age and where a person lives.

Synchronised123:

--- Quote from: trashedjade on September 18, 2018, 10:29:44 am ---Hi :) Here is an essay on the topic ‘Language and identity are inextricably linked. How is this reflected in the current Australian identity? Refer to at least two subsystems in your response.’ (VCAA Question 2012) Just wondering if anyone is willing to have a look at it? It will be greatly greatly appreciated:D

Bruce Moore once stated that ‘of all markers of identity, language is by far the most important’, and in many ways this notion of linguistic identity is reflected in the current Australian context. The many Australian cultural values are shown through a variety of lexical choices. Furthermore, ethnolects and Australian English is an indication of Australia’s multicultural and national identity, shown through a range of syntactic and phonological features.

Slang is one of the means by which the Australian cultural identity is exemplified. Australia's laidback cultural context often allows for a lowered register to be employed, which can be seen through the informal terms of address such as ‘mate’ and ‘darl’, as well as swears such as ‘cunt’, ‘faggot’’ and ‘bastard’, used between close friends as terms of endearment while displaying the Australian values of fairplay and mateship. This is also exemplified through the use of morphological diminutives, created by the addition of suffixes ‘-o’, ‘-ie’ and ‘-y’. For example, terms such as ‘tradie’, ‘reffo’ and ‘postie’ are frequently used instead of ‘tradesman’, ‘refugee’ and ’postman’, reflecting the classless society in Australia where everyone is respected regardless of their socio-economic status. Nicknames are also commonplace within Australia’s sporting domain, evident when Geelong football player Gary Ablett was referred to with the hypocorism ‘Gaz’ in a 2018 Herald Sun article. Likewise, Collingwood football midfielder Adam Treloar also fondly referred to his teammates Jeremy Howe and Jordan De Goey as ‘Howie’ and ‘Jordy’, which carried semantic connotations of warmth and affection to easily reflect the Australian spirit. Similarly, the new prime minister Scott Morrison has recently referred to himself as ‘ScoMo’, in the signing off in an email to the Liberal Party. This use of a more informal moniker by a successful figure of authority bridges the gap with the wider population by expressing the egalitarian nature of Australian society. Hence, employment of such unique lexical features ‘fosters great national pride’ (Kate Burridge) by reflecting the laidback ‘no worries’ nature that Australians call their own.

Moreover, the influx in migration has given rise to a myriad of ethnolects to reflect Australia’s growing multicultural identity. The incorporation of lexical and syntactic features from the original ethnolect into mainstream Australian English unites second-generation Australians from different ethnic groups. For example, in the Arabic-speaking community, the lexeme ‘shoo’ is used for ‘what’s up?’, ‘yallah’ for ‘goodbye’ and ‘habib’ for ‘friend. Syntactically speaking, Greek-Australians often speak with a lack of determiners such as ‘the’ and ‘some’, heard if they were to say ‘Can I have cake?’ instead of ‘Can I have some cake?’. These usages allow each minority group to ‘express links with their heritage communities’ (Josh Clothier) while earning a badge of cultural membership. Furthermore, phonological features also function as in-group recognition devices. For instance, in many Asian ethnolects such as Chinese and Singaporean-English, phonological substitution of the voiced dental fricative /ð/ with the dental stops /n/ and /d/ is common, heard when the lexemes ‘that’ and ‘this’ are pronounced as ‘/nat/’ and ‘/dis/’. Likewise, frequent code-switching in the mandarin ethnolect, such as in the sentence ‘wah, you [are] so pretty lah’, reflects characteristics of the native language such as the use of exclamative particles ‘wah’ and ‘lah’, and a lack of copula verb ‘are’. When these features are used, especially by the ethnic minority, they are a ‘powerful symbol of group belonging’ (Kate Burridge) as it allows members to build ‘solidarity with [their] ethnic group’ (Anna Duszak), and hence, an identity within the Australian society.

Additionally, Broad Australian English (BAE) is a language variety unique to Australia which plays an important role in creating a national identity. In particular, the values and features associated with the Broad Australian English (BAE) portrays Australia as a hospitable, easy-going nation. One such feature is the diphthongal nature of vowel sounds. This is evident when speakers pronounce the lexeme ‘mate’ closer to ‘might’, where the vowel /ʌɪ/ is pronounced as /eɪ/. Other characteristics include non-standard lexical and syntactic features, such as double negatives (‘I don’t know nothing’), plural forms (‘youse’) and the use of lexeme ‘me’ instead of ‘my’ (‘I left me keys in me car’). This is further observed when Shane Jacobson, the host of Big Little Shots (an Australian talent show) says ‘You’re a cool dude, aren’t ya?’ to one of the contestants, and ‘He’s gonna punch Austraya out’ in a recent season 2 episode. There, the lexeme /l/ is assimilated to /y/ in ‘Australia’, ‘going to’ is ellipted to ‘gonna’, and the slang ‘dude’ is used as an informal term of address to decrease social distance. This tendency to assimilate and elide lexemes portrays Shane Jacobson as a friendly, approachable ‘Aussie battler’ while appealing to a wide range of audience, further reflecting the values of mateship and ‘laidbackness’ of the Australian nation, and hence establishing a unique Australian identity.

The use of slang, ethnolects and accents to reflect the Australian identity shows that language is no doubt intertwined with our language. It will always be a mirror to Australia’s cultural, national and multicultural identity, as it is ‘a road map.. Of where its people came from and where they are going’ (Rita Mae Brown).


--- End quote ---

Suggesting how certain accents and their features are intrinsically related to aspects of national identity would be wrong. A better para on accents would be the shifts in how younger people nowadays are adopting the general accent, which is more central on the spectrum to recent pass where it was deemed that the cultural accent was the prestigious accent. Likewise the shift from the broad shows we're more confident and contemporary as we do not need to rely on an over-expression of our accent to establish our identity on the world scene.

Something along those lines would be better but generally your essay is good and flows well :)

leonm19:
Hi can anyone please mark my essay, give it a score and some feedback?

Thanks in advance!  :)




Language use can reveal the underlying attitudes of dominant groups to a range of identities and cultures in the contemporary Australian context.

Discuss, referring to at least two subsystems of language in your response.

The language used in the contemporary Australian context fully encompasses who we are as individuals, groups and as a society. The dominant groups in our society are often associated with Standard English and the media, both of which express a range of different attitudes towards identities and cultures. The language used by these dominant groups can reflect their negative attitudes towards other minorities, such as prejudice against ethnolect varieties and gender bias. However, the creation of politically correct (PC) language reveals the underlying positive attitude of dominant groups, which aims to eradicate bigotry and discriminatory language.


The language that dominant groups in our society use often reflects a negative attitude towards groups with other social identities straying from the ‘stale pale male’ norm. As linguist Kate Burridge has stated in the past, “Standard English is considered by many to be a high sociolect… it is usually associated with elite groups.” This alludes to the fact that dominant groups view themselves as the elite group, and through their language, they often target groups that don’t fit within the dominant group of white, heterosexual, upper class men. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson compared Jeremy Corbyn to a “great big girl’s blouse”. Johnson is the epitome of the aforementioned dominant group, and the use of this sexist derogatory phrase implies that the dominant group views girls as lesser than males. Furthermore, there are many more slurs that portray a negative connotation for sexual activity by females. Females are subjected to the derogatory epithets such as “bitch”, “cunt”, “hoe”, “slut” and “thot” that suggest women be condemned for their sexual activity. Whilst females are subject to slurs with negative connotations, males who perform the same activities are instead congratulated, with phrases such as “go get some” and “you’re a man now” used to convey positive connotations. This demonstrates the negative stigma surrounding females having sex and the expectation of a woman to stay chaste and pure.


Prejudice against other ethnolect varieties is also evident in our contemporary Australian society. Standard English is the variety of English mainly used by the dominant groups, and is often associated with prestige and superiority. The dominant groups often discriminate against groups that do not speak the Standard English variety. Ethnic minorities fall under this group, and are often “subjected to a higher degree of negative evaluation in terms of intelligence and status” (Stimulus B). This is reflected in the presence of derogatory terms for people of different races, such as “ape” for an Aboriginal person. The likening of the Aboriginal people to an animal reveals a lack of respect and a disdain towards their culture and them as a person. “Ape” is also used to refer to their mannerisms and the traditions they uphold, which dominant groups may view as uncivilized. Similarly, the derogatory phrase “ching chang chong” is used to mock the Chinese language and regard the language itself as less prestigious than English. Recently, someone I know has been subjected to the racist imperative “speak English, we’re in Australia”, which postulates a lack of acceptance of other ethnolect varieties in Australia. Despite the multiculturalist view of the contemporary Australian society, Standard English is still regarded as more prestigious and is more widely accepted than other minorities.


On the other hand, the establishment of politically correct (PC) language and language changes show an acceptance of people outside the dominant groups, including the LGBTIQ+ community and a progression towards gender equality. The use of PC language that describes the LGBTIQ community is an example of the acceptance of a group that was once discriminated against. Recently the pronoun plural pronoun “they” instead of the gender-specific pronouns “he” and “she” is becoming increasingly common, for the purpose of respecting queer people. It is also becoming more popular to refer to a person’s romantic spouse as their “partner” in the place of the nouns “girlfriend” or “boyfriend” and “wife” or “husband” rather than assuming the gender of the spouse and the sexuality of a person. The use of this PC language promotes the inclusion of people of all genders and sexes, which reveals the changing positive attitude of dominant groups towards the LGBTIQ community. Recently, Wimbledon has changed its traditional naming titles to provide gender equality. Last year, it was brought to the attention to the committee when Serena Williams played as a married woman, the umpire would call out “Game, Mrs Williams” rather than her initial “Game, Miss Williams”. This year, Wimbledon has changed the rules to match that of the male players, where the umpire would say “Game, Federer” and now it will be “Game, Williams”. The exclusion of honorifics by the Wimbledon committee shows a progressive change towards gender equality by such a highly viewed organisation and increases awareness towards gender equality.


Language will always play a major role in revealing the attitudes of dominant groups towards other minorities. Although the presence of gender-specific language and racial slurs still displays discrimination and a negative attitude towards those that fall outside the dominant group, our society will continue evolve and our language along with it, to develop a more open and positive attitude towards other minority groups.

anoushka_iyer:
Hello everyone! This is an essay I wrote as holiday homework, so it would be amazing if you could give me some feedback on what I've written. Thank you so much!!


TOPIC: Australian identity is bound up in our use of informal language


Informal language is a distinguishing feature of the Australian identity. The Australian identity is traditionally defined by cultural values such as mateship, egalitarianism, laid-backness, good-humour, outgoingness, altruism, and authenticity. Informal language, such as colloquialisms, connected speech processes, profanity, and diminutives often exemplify these core values. However, informal language does not always reflect Australian identity but is used in a conscious effort to construct it. It is therefore important to consider context and social purpose when analysing the relationship between Australian identity and informal language. Nevertheless, the importance of informal language to our national identity is undeniable and in some ways, it is possible to see informality as an Australian value in itself.

Australian English has numerous informal lexical and phonological features that reflect a traditional Australian identity. For instance, the colloquial greeting ‘G’ day’ is used in intimate social interactions, but also is famously recognised globally as an Australianism, with Australia’s economic diplomacy programme called ‘G’ day USA’. The name ‘G’ day USA’ represents mateship, a hallmark of Australian culture, achieving the title’s social purpose to aid solidarity and diplomacy between the nations. In fact, informal language, in some ways, is a part of Australian values. This is epitomised by the inherent relaxedness of our very speech, particularly at the broader end of the spectrum, including the ‘loss and modification of sounds’ (Kate Burridge). For example, ‘Good day’ is often elided and instead pronounced like ‘g’ day’. If one were to say ‘Good Day’ phoneme by phoneme, it would sound quite formal, contrived and pretentious, whereas ‘g’ day’ has a friendlier and more down-to-earth feel, reducing social distance between the interlocutors. Furthermore, the informality of Australian English phonology was showcased in a McDonald's campaign last year on Australia Day. They spelt ‘Mc Nuggets’ as ‘Mick Nuggits’, where the phoneme ‘/i/’ is inserted into ‘Mc’ and substituted into ‘Nuggets’. ‘Quarter Pounder’ was spelt as ‘Kworda Pownda’, with the terminal [er] sound in ‘Quarter’ reduced to a ‘schwa’, and the voiceless /t/ assimilated into a voiced /d/ via tipping. Such connected speech processes, characteristic of informal registers, echo the casualness of the conventional Australian identity. However, whilst most Australians found the advertisements amusing, many objected that they were ‘culturally insensitive’ and ‘racist’ for reinforcing stereotypes about the Australian accent. Due to the controversy surrounding celebrating a traditionally ‘bogan’ Australian identity on Australia Day, this campaign was accused of contributing to ‘toxic patriotism’ (Luke Henriques-Gomes). Therefore, whilst some embrace the informality of the broader Australian accent as a part of our identity, it is still stigmatised for its political or socioeconomic associations.

Secondly, in contemporary Australian society, our casual use of profanity reflects our cultural values of mateship and ‘can be a way of asserting a cultural cohesion’ (Linguist Kate Holden). This is most commonly evident amongst young Australian males, who might affectionately use profane vocatives such as ‘bloody bastard’, ‘wanker’ and ‘mad c*nt’ to address their ‘mates’. This promotes a sense of in-group membership and covert prestige, as it reflects their shared ‘young larrikin Australian male’ identity. Often, the interlocutors are not too concerned about affirming each others’ face needs due to the closeness and solidarity of their relationship. However, such profanity is still condemned by many Australians, particularly in the public domain where it may only appeal to a minority of the population. For example, earlier this year, Lebanese Australian Sydney shop owner Yahya Tuameh posted a shop sign reading ‘Open ya sicc c*nts’. The profane vocative ‘c*nts’, the non-standard orthography of ‘sicc’ and the vowel reduced form of ‘you’ enhance the informality of register. This sign received outrage from the public, who were highly offended and demanded the sign be taken down. In contrast, the shop owner and his loyal customers asserted it was ‘as Australian as vegemite’. The noun ‘c*nt’ is highly taboo in other societies, but in such an informal Australian setting, it can signal friendship and good-humour. This, and the controversial nature of the expletive, capture the viewers’ attention, inviting a niche group of most likely younger Australian men of lower socioeconomic status to visit his shop since they feel like ‘one of the gang’ (Linguist Helen E. Ross). Finally, some instances of profanity do not appeal to anybody as they completely violate our nationally shared values. For example, last year in October, Peter Russo received vehement backlash after swearing in parliament, calling a woman a ‘fuckwit’. In contrast to the former usages, the slang compound noun ‘fuckwit’ was derogatorily used to exclude and insult, and therefore breached the Australian cultural values of friendliness, mateship, and in-group solidarity. Such dysphemistic language is highly inappropriate and unprofessional in a formal, official parliamentary setting, especially if used to degrade. This highlights the importance of context and intent in stipulating whether profane informal language builds our national identity or compromises it. Overall, profanity has a special place in Australian discourse, so when it is used as a badge of mateship and inclusion rather than offense, it truly reflects an easygoing, jocular Australian identity.

Although informal Australian English reflects our cultural values, there is often some conscious effort to construct an Australian identity through colloquial English. This is evident in the public domain, where informal language is tactically, if not deceptively, employed by politicians to achieve their vested political motives. For example, in the last election, PM Scott Morrison called coal power ‘fair-dinkum power’. This was clearly an attempt to construct his identity as a ‘true-blue Aussie’ whom the general Australian public could trust; his energy policies were very ‘fair dinkum’, after all - appealing to Australian cultural values like authenticity and genuineness. However, is a politician manipulating the public to vote for them really very fair dinkum- authentic and genuine? From this, it is clear that this use of informal language does not truly reflect Australian identity as it is so clearly a cynical effort to persuade people to vote for him, violating our cultural values. Similarly, the PM has assigned himself the diminutive nickname ‘ScoMo’ to seem friendlier, more down-to-earth and reduce the social distance between himself to achieve his vested political motives. In contrast, the conscious use of informal language can authentically reflect an Australian identity. The hypocorism ‘firie’ resurfaced during the bushfire season earlier this year with the ‘Fund the firies’ slogan used by the Make It Rain campaign. Compared to the neutral noun ‘firefighter’, ‘firie’ is a term of endearment, carrying positive connotations of friendliness and vulnerability. This instills empathy in the hearts of the general Australian public, ultimately persuading them to donate to the ‘Fund the Firies’ cause. In contrast to the PM’s cynical use of Australian colloquialisms and a diminutive, ‘firies’ serves to promote an altruistic cause, thereby supporting cultural values of compassion and selflessness which build up our ‘ideal’ national identity. Therefore, when informal language appeals to our moral cultural values of authenticity, goodwill, and egalitarianism it truly reflects the ideals of our national identity.

In conclusion, informal language is a cornerstone of the Australian identity. This is shown through the informal lexical and phonological features, the use of profanity to build social solidarity and the use of diminutive vocatives which all conform to traditional Australian values of egalitarianism, mateship, and easygoingness. Informal language is also used in formal contexts to consciously construct an Australian identity. Although views on informality in language are disputed, and its appropriateness is highly dependent on context, informality in itself is a distinct feature of what it means to be Australian.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page