teletubbies_95's eng lang 3/4 questions thread!

[teletubbies_95]

I know there are 3 types of australian accents , which are phonologically different ( ie in the broad accent ,there is more ellipsis and assimilation that the others) . But are there other differences with regards to other subsystems? And if so, examples?

I know there are lexical differences , ie more slang in broad accent than the others.

Thanks!

[|ll|lll|]

Correction: the 3 types of Australian accents are only phonologically different.

Other varieties of Australian English are like "me mates" instead of "my mates" etc. I think this is under syntax

[teletubbies_95]

But can't there be differences such as, as before mentioned , lexical differences, such as more slang , maybe more use of dysphemisms in broad accents, and more diminutives in broad accents compared to cultivated accent?

[Kaille]

I think in regards to the accents, it is purely phonological therefore use of metalanguage such as dysphemisms wouldn't really work (which is what the poster before me explained ). As englang students we try not to cast judgements such as that those with a broad accent are more inclined to use more dysphemisms and diminuitives than others. Instead we would say, nonstandard australian varieties may involve slang and dysphemistic terms.

Its great that you're learning ahead

[thushan]

Hey, two examples I managed to happen across:

Macca's Ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kUTnsqgTmw

Cricket: http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/601929.html

There was controversy over the rotation of players between games. So the Australian Cricket Board uses the phrase "informed player management" instead of "rotation."

[thushan]

I know there are 3 types of australian accents , which are phonologically different ( ie in the broad accent ,there is more ellipsis and assimilation that the others) . But are there other differences with regards to other subsystems? And if so, examples?

I know there are lexical differences , ie more slang in broad accent than the others.

Thanks!

Ah. Yes. Yes, yes. I remember this. I had enormous trouble trying to figure this out. I actually had to address this in my exam essay. I ended up describing the regular Aussie English (as opposed to ethnocultural varieties and Indigenous Australian English) as 'Standard Australian English as defined by Felicity Cox, which is an aggregation of the broad, general and cultivated varieties' - I treated the three as varieties.

I THINK, given that I wrote that in the exam, that the examiners would be lenient on how you categorise Australian English because there seems to  be disagreement amongst linguists in categorisation. Plus, categorisation isn't that important. All it is is trying to organise nature into a series of boxes. The problem is that nature doesn't like being put in boxes.

I had a thread on this - ask Stonecold, he can give you more information on this.

[teletubbies_95]

@kallie : Thanks for your advice! I shall not do that next time . Thanks!

@thush: I was reading through the book and asking myself , why is this purely phonological ? why do they mention sociolects ( ie. more higher class= more cultivated , therefore using more "educated " seeming lexemes( ie. bigger words ), less dysphemisms" and more rigid syntax) ? but now i understand why its under " nonstandard" ..THANKS FOR THE LINKS 

[thushan]

@thush: I was reading through the book and asking myself , why is this purely phonological ? why do they mention sociolects ( ie. more higher class= more cultivated , therefore using more "educated " seeming lexemes( ie. bigger words ), less dysphemisms" and more rigid syntax) ? but now i understand why its under " nonstandard" ..THANKS FOR THE LINKS 

Again, this is where nature refuses to be classified. What I ended up doing was mashing it all up into one variety.

[teletubbies_95]

Thanks thush!!

Question: What components do you need to include in a purpose of this text type of question when given a discourse to analyse?

[Kaille]

Question: What components do you need to include in a purpose of this text type of question when given a discourse to analyse?

For me, in a discourse analysis, you dont have to discuss the purpose too much.

Here i'll give an example. If you look up the grill'd careers application questionnaire, some parts are informal and others formal. In this case, you could say something like "the purpose of this text is to extract information from the reader but to also build rapport through the use of informal language techniques to create small social distance by giving the impression of having a laid back environment". Dont mind the example, its the one i was looking at (job hunting).

This is how I would introduce the purpose of the discourse text which would come into my intro. But if your teacher says different listen to he/she, i graduated last year so I might not be up to date hope i helped

Also i havent done englang in a while...so i might not be totally coherent

[teletubbies_95]

Thanks for your hellpp! i really do appreciate it !

When writing essays, I have a problem using certain language that is too conclusive or strong  , ie " lexemes such as " diapers and "elevator " have been rejected ". This sentence is a bit too conclusive, how do i make it less conclusive, so what sort of language should i use instead ?
thankks~

[thushan]

Thanks for your hellpp! i really do appreciate it !

When writing essays, I have a problem using certain language that is too conclusive or strong  , ie " lexemes such as " diapers and "elevator " have been rejected ". This sentence is a bit too conclusive, how do i make it less conclusive, so what sort of language should i use instead ?
thankks~

Lexemes such as "diapers" and "elevators" were not overwhelmingly accepted?

[teletubbies_95]

So the first eng Lang sac is in a month for us at school similar to section 1 in the exam? What sort of questions can I expect and what material should I use to practice?? Is it only on formal Lang or informal and formal Lang??

Thanks !!

[teletubbies_95]

I'm extremely confused about the difference between back channeling and minimal responses?
My teacher told me that they are both different things , but from other sources they are the same thing?

[chocolatedaddy]

I think minimal responses come under the term backchannel signals as they are the sounds that listeners make while someone is talking such as 'hmmm' and 'uh huh'. I think the difference is words with semantic value such as 'ok', 'right' and 'yeah' aren't considered minimal responses but are still considered backchannel signals, given the right context.