When an essay topic wants you to discuss 'public language', wat should we mention???
this may help you chocolate
How is language used to confuse, mislead or obfuscate in the twenty-first century? Discuss in relation to public language. Refer to at least two subsystems of language in your response.We consciously know how to use language, while generally being guided by the principals of appropriateness. However in the public domain, language can be used to deliberately understate, or overstate. Semantically, doublespeak misleads, euphemisms soften while lexically neologisms and bureaucratic jargon can be the root of confusion. Add to that, the use of clever syntactic structures, one realizes that, indeed, the public is obfuscated.
Semantically, doublespeak and euphemisms can be misleading. Doublespeak is language deliberately constructed to disguise or distort its actual meaning. The recent financial crises bought with it “Rightsize”, “layoff” or “headcount adjustment” all double speak for the mass sacking of employees and used by large corporations such as Myers and Ford. The Wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq have Coined euphemisms such as “Area Denial munitions”, “service” and “wet work” which represent; landmine, disable a target and assassination respectively. Politically being in an election year Leaders have ramped up their misleading doublespeak. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd periodically reference of the Christmas island detention facility as an “internment facility” instead of prison as coined by its detainees. In Opposition Leader Tony Abbott’s new book “battlelines” he calls Kevin Rudd’s own doublespeak “systematic explanation” which is doublespeak itself. This use of doublespeak and euphemisms in the public domain is a clear representation of how language is used to mislead.
Some of the Intellectual lexical inventions designed, serve purely to confuse the public. The inventiveness of Australian’s shows with their creative neologisms. Tony Abbott once called Australia a “Pollination”, meaning a country of politicians. The Greens have been known to call liberals “Libtards”. In the recent health debate at the press club, neologisms such as “Block funding” and “shovel ready” were thrown around. These neologisms only serve to confuse their captive audiences who are too afraid to admit their intellectual shortcomings and hence remain confused. Elections are notorious for their perplexing jargon. It hasn’t been since 1974 that Britain has had a “hung parliament”, the need for an “absolute majority” and the winner is the “first-past-the-post” are all jargon terms that really fail to register any solid connotations. Obviously neologisms and election jargon are clear examples of confusing language that is used in the public realm.
The distinctive syntactic structures that are employed in the public field are indeed only measures used to obfuscate. Modal auxiliaries are commonplace in the public theater and bring with them a positive connotation. In last months health debate Liberal leader Tony Abott said “we can fix the situation with hospital beds”, while Prime Minister Rudd said “the labor government can fix this problem” the modal auxiliary of can does not mean they will follow this through but rather tricks the public into thinking that they will. The use of a passive voice……………..
The register we use in the public domain often contravenes the principals of appropriateness. Semantically, lexically and syntactically the choices we make in the public realm supply no more than to mislead, confuse and obfuscate the audience.
And here is another one
Prompt: ‘Our language use changes every time we speak or write; we are proficient at choosing the “right” language for the occasion.’ Discuss the factors which influence our choice of language and explain why we must adjust our language accordingly.response:
Whether consciously or subconsciously it seems evident that the principals of appropriateness are upheld. Politicians and public servants have mastered the use of “right” language. Changing societal expectations and group membership are key dynamics that must also be considered.
Politicians and public servant are the masters language that’s misleading, confusing or appeasing. With the use of modal verbs politicians are promising nothing, Liberal leader Tony Abott “We can fix the situation with hospital beds”, Prime minister Kevin Rudd “We can stop the deluge of refugees”. Saying “We can” does not me “We will” leaving there election promises with no base. Neologisms such as “threw the roof”, “block funding” and “lay the foundations” were all used in the recent health debate and serve to confuse the audience as they fail to register something meaningful. Non-discriminatory language has even started to infiltrate our police force, which is now restricted when identifying criminals to using the lexemes of “Caucasian”, “Asian”, “Aboriginal” and “Other” even though it significantly hampers their ability to apprehend the offenders. This is not restricted to Australia, the Obama administration has gone from “global war on terror” to calling it an “overseas contingency mission”. Politicians and public servants use this mastery of “right” language for their own purposes and obviously they achieve them.
Societal values are forever changing. Lexical gambits that were once considered euphemisms such as “African-American”, “Shell Shock”, “Disabled” are no longer accepted and have been replaced with “People of colour”, “Post Traumatic stress disorder” and “differently-abled”. Bureaucracies and the Military have adapted to these changing societal values and have coined euphemisms such as “sunshine unit” for a leaking nuclear power plant. McDonald’s no longer refer to putting food into a microwave but are “putting it in the queue”. This extends to the military who have been using the term for their hit list, “deck of cards”, by calling the known terrorist an inanimate object such as the “jack of clubs” or “queen of diamond” it dehumanises the targets and makes them sound more sinister. These changing values also after the way we talk about taboo topics. Death for instance is the hallmark of taboo. This stems from the ancient thoughts that to speak of death was to invite death. “Death”, “croaked” and “died” are not acceptable ways to talk about this taboo topic instead “passed away”, “passed on” or “cashed in their chips” are only accepted. As society changes so does what is the “right” language.
The different group we belong to is a vital dynamic in our choice of language. A trade mark of what groups one belongs to are jargon lexemes, can serve to exclude. “Productivity”, “arbitrage” and “Amortization” are lexical items that would probably not be understood by the average Joe Blow and hence if it were used when he was present in the discourse he would be excluded by the interlocutors. Metaphors such as “blue chip”, “flame out” and “goodwill” also show this. Slang can be an inclusive language. “LOL”, “GTG” and “CBF” are slang terms that teens use due to their need to be included. Advertisers target specific groups by using specific lexemes, for instance one of the latest nestle ad’s says “It’s better to lol in person,” which is instantly identifiable with the teenspeak sociolect and builds a social rapport with them. The “right “language and identifying what is right is affect greatly by group membership.
What dictates what is “right” language extends far and wide and these examples show how important this choice is. Politicians and public servants lead the way in there use of language also. Groups and societal values differ from context to context and hence so does the language used. Choosing this “right” language is both important but natural.
Home
Help
Search
Login
