What did you write about?

[appianway]

What did you write about in your essay?

[Damo17]

I wrote on essay number 3. I talked about Identity through language use, that non-standard usage was vital to establish Identity in some context/groups. Examples discussed were on Teenspeak, Ethnolects, technological advancements (about msn, sms, etc.), and something else I can't remember. I was so happy that I could use the IPA in my essay.

[lynt.br]

Euphemism essay here. Because it was discuss I basically just covered all the different perspectives people have towards euphemism and how it can be perceived to strengthen social fabric or crate social discord.

The examples I covered were:
"Guide dogs for the blind" -> "Seeing eye dogs" How this actually creates ambiguity because the new name relies upon reader inference whereas the old name had a clear denotative meaning. I also had "needy" for "poor" as another example of how euphemism can be linguistically imprecise or unclear.

"Disabled person" -> "Dysabled person"
Looked at the connotations of the prefix Dis-  and how it implies someone is incapable of something.

"Extreme Rendition" I explored the etymology and history of the word rendition to show how an argument can be made this euphemistic term is deceptive and hence does not promote social harmony.

Kevin Rudd's use of "tough luck mate" at Chris O'Brien's funeral. Also looked at how in this context, just language did actually promote social harmony because they were friends. Threw in a quote from David Crystal here: "Words are the messengers of intentions and we should never shoot the messenger".

"Stolen Generation" -> "Separated Generation" I looked at how "Separate" is an unnergative verb and hence does not necessitate an agent. Some people see this as deceptive and a way to shirk responsibility for reprehensible actions.

[appianway]

Good work, lynt.br Some nice examples

I chose the 3rd topic, and this is how I structured my response. I wrote around 900 words, but I'm not sure if my topic links were strong enough, because for one of my examples I didn't explicitly say how it improves the clarity, but rather, wrote about how society values it:

Paragraph 1: Non-standard langauge allows identity to be shown

• Non standard phonology (including that seen in ethnolects) allows people to demonstrate an allegiance to certain groups (I used a Kate Burridge quote). I included examples from the Chinese-Mandarin ethnolect, such as the replacement of fricatives with [d] and the elision of final consonants
• Non standard lexical choices can indicate the values that a speaker holds. I said that the use of politically incorrect lexemes (such as "retarded" rather than "intellectually challenged" and the colloquial expression "bulging at the girth" rather than "overweight") could indicate that the speaker has little regard for the groups concened. I mentioned that although this can create social discord, it's still a fundamental display of the speaker's identity.

Paragraph 2: Non-standard language facilitates interactions in ways that the standard can't

• Spoke about HRT (used Kath and Kim's "look at moi/") in declaratives, and how this creates an informal register, lessening the social distance, and encourages others to take the floor.
• Mentioned that the use of politically incorrect language within the group concerned (such as "curry" instead of "south asian") can build solidarity by highlighting what's common between the individuals
• Mentioned how jargon, as the technical language of a group (gave the examples of "prion" and "gluon" from the domain of physics ) facilitates interaction by allowing concise responses, and builds solidarity by highlighting a common background
• Mentioned the use of evocatives (such as the complex nominal derivation of "Davo" from "David") creates an informal register, diminishing the social distance

Paragraph 3: Although non-standard language contributes much to Australian society, the standard is often needed to clarify meaning

• Wrote about how standard english is understood by most Australians, and hence is a vessel to communicate without too much ambiguity
• Wrote about how there's often ambiguity when your is used (often when replacing the standard 'you're') as the semantics aren't clear
• Mentioned how society values standard orthography, with students often penalised for using non-standard orthography "punised" instead of "punished" in examinations)
• Wrote about how standard morphography clarifies meaning in comparison to nominalisation (gave examples from the VELS curriculum design). Mentioned how although nominalisation's often used to avoid contentious topics (with the controversy of VELS), standard morphography should be used to clarify the meaning for educators, students and parents alike

And I stuck my reference to the stimuli in my conclusion. I hope I wrote enough, and I hope my topic links were strong. I'm just worried about how I linked in the orthography...
[/list]

[TheJosh]

I wrote about George Clooney....

(Sorry I just had to say it)

[lynt.br]

Good work, lynt.br Some nice examples

I chose the 3rd topic, and this is how I structured my response. I wrote around 900 words, but I'm not sure if my topic links were strong enough, because for one of my examples I didn't explicitly say how it improves the clarity, but rather, wrote about how society values it:

Paragraph 1: Non-standard langauge allows identity to be shown

• Non standard phonology (including that seen in ethnolects) allows people to demonstrate an allegiance to certain groups (I used a Kate Burridge quote). I included examples from the Chinese-Mandarin ethnolect, such as the replacement of fricatives with [d] and the elision of final consonants
• Non standard lexical choices can indicate the values that a speaker holds. I said that the use of politically incorrect lexemes (such as "retarded" rather than "intellectually challenged" and the colloquial expression "bulging at the girth" rather than "overweight") could indicate that the speaker has little regard for the groups concened. I mentioned that although this can create social discord, it's still a fundamental display of the speaker's identity.

Paragraph 2: Non-standard language facilitates interactions in ways that the standard can't

• Spoke about HRT (used Kath and Kim's "look at moi/") in declaratives, and how this creates an informal register, lessening the social distance, and encourages others to take the floor.
• Mentioned that the use of politically incorrect language within the group concerned (such as "curry" instead of "south asian") can build solidarity by highlighting what's common between the individuals
• Mentioned how jargon, as the technical language of a group (gave the examples of "prion" and "gluon" from the domain of physics ) facilitates interaction by allowing concise responses, and builds solidarity by highlighting a common background
• Mentioned the use of evocatives (such as the complex nominal derivation of "Davo" from "David") creates an informal register, diminishing the social distance

Paragraph 3: Although non-standard language contributes much to Australian society, the standard is often needed to clarify meaning

• Wrote about how standard english is understood by most Australians, and hence is a vessel to communicate without too much ambiguity
• Wrote about how there's often ambiguity when your is used (often when replacing the standard 'you're') as the semantics aren't clear
• Mentioned how society values standard orthography, with students often penalised for using non-standard orthography "punised" instead of "punished" in examinations)
• Wrote about how standard morphography clarifies meaning in comparison to nominalisation (gave examples from the VELS curriculum design). Mentioned how although nominalisation's often used to avoid contentious topics (with the controversy of VELS), standard morphography should be used to clarify the meaning for educators, students and parents alike

And I stuck my reference to the stimuli in my conclusion. I hope I wrote enough, and I hope my topic links were strong. I'm just worried about how I linked in the orthography...
[/list]

I wouldn't be concerned at all if your essay was this comprehensive. The links don't have to be explicit and overuse of them can become repetitive (I used the term "social harmony" at least 10 times in my essay). Really that plan demonstrates remarkable knowledge into the subject matter and covers a range of opinions/perspectives. I'd say your a candidate for full marks on the essay.

[appianway]

Really? I hope I do well - a lot of people expect me to (but strangely enough, not my family...). Hopefully I've explained everything to a high enough degree... I didn't mention "prescriptive" and "descriptive" too many times in the essay (I mentioned them briefly in the introduction), but I asked my teacher and she said we didn't have to explicitly state it (I mentioned the tendency to disparage non standard varieties)...

[Hooligan]

Ooooo... looks like some of you guys wrote pretty decent essays. Nice work.

[pHysiX]

anyone did essay question 2?

[Gloamglozer]

anyone did essay question 2?

I think most people thought that question was pretty dodgy so they probably didn't do it.

Did you do it?