Well, our teacher gave us a practice essay topic (I think from a previous exam) and the following is what I came up with. I was hoping to get 45+ and I was wondering what I could do to this essay that would help me get there. Would be awesome if somebody could help me find areas where I could improve. I was also wondering which Area Of Study this falls in, and whether it is still applicable to the current one.
Cheers.
‘[This] is also a time when pessimists are writing gloomily about declining standards, the loss of valuable distinctions in meaning, the introduction of unappetising vogue words and slang. But I refuse to be a pessimist.’
Do you agree with Burchfield, or are you a pessimist about these aspects of language in the current Australian context?
In the 21st century, English – particularly Australian English – has undergone a myriad of linguistic changes that is the result of an ever-changing society that continues to adapt to changing social and political views. The changes that have been affecting the language in recent decades can be seen in a wide variety of the language subsystems, and are often seen in a negative light. From the rise of the technological world to socio-economic changes, Australian society is evolving and as a result, the Australian language has seen a shift often marked by linguists as a ‘declining standard’. Some go ever further, writing about ‘loss of valuable distinctions in meaning’ and a rise in ‘unappetising vogue words and slang’. And while it is true that the quality of language may appear to be slowly separating itself from what we know as “Standard English”, those who write gloomily about ‘unappetising vogue words and slang’ are pessimists who fail to see that the change in our language is unavoidable and should not be seen as completely negative. The importance of ‘Standard English’ and those past lessons of elocution have long been replaced by the ethnolects that come from the influx of immigrants, the contemporary need and desire for practicality and appropriateness as well as a rise in neologisms and slang that has derived from our changed Australian society.
Many so-called ‘pessimists’ argue that there has been an overall decline in the standard of our language usage. Variations of Australian English – such as teenspeak – often use non-standard lexical items and syntax; as a result, they do not adhere to the standard rules of language and can often be seen as detrimental to our language. One such lexical item is the word ‘like’. Often associated with ‘Valley girls’ in pop culture, its non-traditional has given rise to a variety of uses in slang and colloquial speech, and its ‘over excessive’ usage is constantly under attack. Today, it is especially common within the younger generations, particularly American and Australian female native English-speaking teenagers. Conventionally, the word ‘like’ has three uses; as a preposition used in comparisons (“I wish I was like Mr. Rayner.”), as a conjunction in place of the subordinating conjunction ‘as’ or ‘as if’ (“He looks like he is dying.”) or as a verb (“I like trolling.”). Colloquially however, the word has many more non-Standard uses that include; as an adverb meaning nearly or to indicate that the phrase in which it appears is to be taken metaphorically or as a hyperbole (“I, like, died!”), as a quotative to introduce a quotation (“He was like, “what the hell?””, as a hedge to indicate an approximation or exaggeration (“The restaurant is only like five minutes away!”) or most commonly, as a discourse particle or filler to replace ‘um’ (“I like, don’t know what to like, do like, yeah.”). The colloquial uses of the word ‘like’ that do not follow standard language rules has changed the whole connotation of the word, and to some, the word represents the ‘declining standards’ of our language use. However, the myriad of uses and the changes of connotation are not simply a decline in standard – they mirror a transient language that continues to change and as a result, older notions of ‘Standard English’ and the rules that go with language cannot be applied and should not be used as a means to compare literacy standards.
Similarly, the invention of many new technologies and the similar advancement has resulted in new words, slang, and even a few new languages that include ‘leet-speak’ and the cult dialect that spawned from the ‘LOLcat’ phenomenon. In our modern, tech-savvy society, the use of lexemes such as ‘LOL’ or ‘WTF’, lexical items that derive from e-language –or netspeak- has dramatically increased; it is the use of this non-standard language that prescriptivists blame for declining literary standards. David Crystal agrees with Burchfield, stating that the rise in these colloquialisms is hardly a surprise, and that much of slang used online represents a new form of word play used to impress their peers. “Online you show how brilliant you are by manipulating the language of the internet”, says Crystal. While it strays away from the traditional uses of ‘Standard English’, these online phenomenon reflect the creativity that can be used to play with our language and should not be seen as reflecting any sort of ‘declining standard’ – “They might not be reading Shakespeare and Dickens but they are reading and cooking up these amazing little games…” (Crystal, 2010). The use of such slang is also extremely important and vital for maintaining group solidarity and the reflection of identity. As our society progresses, the language that we use marks who we are and how we do certain things – this can be seen in the use of the word ‘google’, a neologism that stems from the search program that is so widely used today that it has become a common verb. The slang and jargon that is formed from e-language is also ‘one of the chief markers of in-group identity’ (Burridge). Slang such as the aforementioned ‘LOL’ and ‘WTF’, if used in a conversation, requires and assumed a shared knowledge between participants and thus the understanding (or lack thereof) of these lexemes creates a division between ‘in-group’ and those ‘out-group’ – in this case, many older members of society unfamiliar to the definitions and meanings of these words make up the ‘out-group’. As seen with the above examples, not only does language help to mark our identity, the language reflects a change in society and mirrors our reliance of technology and a new form of wordplay and creativity.
However, pessimists are often right to complain about ‘the loss of valuable distinctions of meaning’. In the form of jargon, doublespeak and even acronyms, lines of thought and meanings can easily be altered or manipulated to suit the communicator’s needs and as a result, their true intentions and meanings are ambiguous or even hidden. One such technique is the use of the linguistic feature pleonasms, in which a person (in this case a politician) uses to many words in a sentence when a simple phrase could suffice. Kevin Rudd, ex-prime minister, one stated, “there is on the face of it a natural complementarity between the two philosophical approaches. And a complementarity that could be developed further in the direction of some form of conceptual synthesis.” Many of his readers would simply not understand, and in doing so he appears superior. Another example of ‘loss of distinctions of meaning’ can be seen in the use of acronyms. In recent times, the ex-‘PM’ , or former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, has used multiple acronyms to hide meaning. He once stated, “you mean ROE (rules of engagement).” This unnecessary use of an unpopular acronym does not convey the message and as a result, the meaning of his sentence is not carried across to the audience.
Modern Australian language is transient in the way it adapts to the changes and developments in society. From the non-standard language that reflects contemporary society to the creations of new languages and slang based on technological advanced and progression, our current use of language does not reflect ‘declining standards’. Rather, our use of such language mirrors the way in which our society changes, and it is impossible to rate our language based on values and beliefs that are now outdated and irrelevant. And while it is true that occasionally we might use language that lacks ‘valuable distinctions in meaning’, the so-called ‘declining standards’ and ‘unappetising vogue words and slang’ mark our identity and define who we are today.
(1267 words)
=]
Home
Help
Search
Login
