Book title - The language report
Author - Susie Dent
Year the book was published - 2003
First edition
Published by - Oxford University Press (OUP) in 2003
Area/city published - New York
Pages - 160
"We should need new words. The old ones just wouldn't fit."
This quote from Susie Dent shows two statements I can test - firstly, the need, use and creation of new words, and secondly how the meanings of words changing, relating to how the old ones no longer 'fit'.
Tuesday, 14 June 2016
Tuesday, 31 May 2016
Gender Article
Write an opinion article in which you discuss the idea that women should change their their language.
Audience: Guardian comment is free readers
How a woman can become more successful by changing her language
Women could become more powerful by dropping their defensive language traits
Self-deprecation and an apologetic style may be beneficial in everyday talk when establishing friendships and talking to friends, but using this language in business and high pressure meetings such as 'I am probably speaking out of turn but...' show weakness, uncertainty and a lack of authority - this is, according to studies, frequently used by women and can consequently limit their potential in high profile job roles. "Why is a man's potential not limited?" You may ask; the answer is simple - because they don't use this weak, defensive style of language!
The fact that some language theorists such as Deborah Cameron who believe men and women do not talk differently is simply ludicrous. Cameron, who invented the 'discursive model' [hyperlink to Deborah Cameron wikipedia page] believes that your gender doesn't influence your language, and that the belief that men and women talk differently is "one of the greatest myths of all time". Why is it? Men are direct, discourteous due to their competitive approach to conversations and aim to dominate conversations through holding centre stage and interrupting people, compared to women who are polite, respectful and care more about language. Reputable language theorist Deborah Tannen [hyperlink to tannen wikipedia page] described in her 'difference model' just how much men and women differ in their language use and what they aim for in conversations - men want 'status' compared to a woman needing 'support', and a man wanting 'competition' compared to a woman wanting 'co-operation' are just a few examples of the differences. This translates to make a huge difference in circumstances such as business meetings, where, explained by Tannen, men are competent in speaking in public situations where they are comfortable in taking centre stage in a 'report' style, and are not afraid to have competition with other people in hostile situations.
Conversely, women are more comfortable in speaking in private conversations where they aim to establish connections with other people where they aim for co-operation and support - this could be interpreted as women being weak seeing they need 'support' which could leave them vulnerable in situations such as boardroom meetings.
"Women who try and claim a public voice are treated like freakish androgynes". Explained by classical scholar Mary Beard, it seems it will be a long time until women are treated fairly when claiming a 'public voice' due to the harsh reality of how they are treated, many describe they are merely a 'mute in the public sphere'. This however may be because of a woman's language style, being uncertain, defensive and apologetic. This allows men to take advantage of what they love to do - take control of a conversation.
Robin Lakoff is a highly regarded language theorist, researching women's language use in the 1970's, creating the deficit model, believing that men's language is normal whereas women's language is deficient due to their frequent use of 'uncertainty features' such as back-channelling [hyperlink to dictionary page with backchannelling definition], being uncertain when describing things, eg 'sort of...' and 'kind of...', and the frequent use of declaring a thought and then needing to question their own thought such as "it's cold in here, isn't it?" known as a tag question. These uncertainty features are all very similar to using an apologetic style and self-deprecating which is also a part of a woman's language use which consequently makes them seem weak and defensive, an approach which certainly has no place in work, especially hostile business meetings for example. How men survive in high profile jobs is through their language style of trying to dominate conversations and speaking in a direct manner and consequently talking for twice as long as women due to their perceived superior status, and being able to take the lead in conversations and use techniques to shut down women in conversations known as 'constraints'. Research conducted by theorists Zimmerman and West [hyperlink to dominance model information page] show that in 11 conversations, men interrupt 46 times compared to women interrupting just twice, and men talk for twice as long. Because of a woman's uncertainty in their language, men frequently are forced to explain things to women which they may already know in a condescending manner known as 'mansplaining', a reason which may also be accountable for men needing to be a powerful participant and take the lead in conversations.
If women don't start to change their language and become less defensive and uncertain, people's beliefs and thoughts towards women, their language and competency to take control in challenging situations may never change.
Audience: Guardian comment is free readers
How a woman can become more successful by changing her language
Women could become more powerful by dropping their defensive language traits
Self-deprecation and an apologetic style may be beneficial in everyday talk when establishing friendships and talking to friends, but using this language in business and high pressure meetings such as 'I am probably speaking out of turn but...' show weakness, uncertainty and a lack of authority - this is, according to studies, frequently used by women and can consequently limit their potential in high profile job roles. "Why is a man's potential not limited?" You may ask; the answer is simple - because they don't use this weak, defensive style of language!
The fact that some language theorists such as Deborah Cameron who believe men and women do not talk differently is simply ludicrous. Cameron, who invented the 'discursive model' [hyperlink to Deborah Cameron wikipedia page] believes that your gender doesn't influence your language, and that the belief that men and women talk differently is "one of the greatest myths of all time". Why is it? Men are direct, discourteous due to their competitive approach to conversations and aim to dominate conversations through holding centre stage and interrupting people, compared to women who are polite, respectful and care more about language. Reputable language theorist Deborah Tannen [hyperlink to tannen wikipedia page] described in her 'difference model' just how much men and women differ in their language use and what they aim for in conversations - men want 'status' compared to a woman needing 'support', and a man wanting 'competition' compared to a woman wanting 'co-operation' are just a few examples of the differences. This translates to make a huge difference in circumstances such as business meetings, where, explained by Tannen, men are competent in speaking in public situations where they are comfortable in taking centre stage in a 'report' style, and are not afraid to have competition with other people in hostile situations.
Conversely, women are more comfortable in speaking in private conversations where they aim to establish connections with other people where they aim for co-operation and support - this could be interpreted as women being weak seeing they need 'support' which could leave them vulnerable in situations such as boardroom meetings.
"Women who try and claim a public voice are treated like freakish androgynes". Explained by classical scholar Mary Beard, it seems it will be a long time until women are treated fairly when claiming a 'public voice' due to the harsh reality of how they are treated, many describe they are merely a 'mute in the public sphere'. This however may be because of a woman's language style, being uncertain, defensive and apologetic. This allows men to take advantage of what they love to do - take control of a conversation.
Robin Lakoff is a highly regarded language theorist, researching women's language use in the 1970's, creating the deficit model, believing that men's language is normal whereas women's language is deficient due to their frequent use of 'uncertainty features' such as back-channelling [hyperlink to dictionary page with backchannelling definition], being uncertain when describing things, eg 'sort of...' and 'kind of...', and the frequent use of declaring a thought and then needing to question their own thought such as "it's cold in here, isn't it?" known as a tag question. These uncertainty features are all very similar to using an apologetic style and self-deprecating which is also a part of a woman's language use which consequently makes them seem weak and defensive, an approach which certainly has no place in work, especially hostile business meetings for example. How men survive in high profile jobs is through their language style of trying to dominate conversations and speaking in a direct manner and consequently talking for twice as long as women due to their perceived superior status, and being able to take the lead in conversations and use techniques to shut down women in conversations known as 'constraints'. Research conducted by theorists Zimmerman and West [hyperlink to dominance model information page] show that in 11 conversations, men interrupt 46 times compared to women interrupting just twice, and men talk for twice as long. Because of a woman's uncertainty in their language, men frequently are forced to explain things to women which they may already know in a condescending manner known as 'mansplaining', a reason which may also be accountable for men needing to be a powerful participant and take the lead in conversations.
If women don't start to change their language and become less defensive and uncertain, people's beliefs and thoughts towards women, their language and competency to take control in challenging situations may never change.
Tuesday, 10 May 2016
Comparison work 10/05/2016
Text A - YouGov website
Because the editor of the YouGov website wants to make online readers feel engaged with the topics surrounding the website, the polite interrogative "what would you like to do?" This interrogative is directly linked to multiple hyperlinks underneath showing what the actual readers can do. This clever use of graphology using hyperlinks shows the affordances of the text as the reader is directly involved straight away through the poll available under the hyperlinked title 'take part'. The cloaked imperative acting as a rhetorical interrogative below 'Would you support or oppose Britain phasing out the use of the one penny coin?' Coupled with the use of direct address, this shows that, relating to Hudson's dimensions of mode, the text has quite a high level of degree of interactiveness due to how easy it is to be involved in a poll relating to one of the main headings. In addition to this, the reader, which the editor of the website believe the implied readers are internet users who have interest in governmental debates, can also take part by creating an account, showing the type of intervactiveness is to connect with others online.
Another hyperlinked heading adopts the title 'Discover our products and services'. This imperative starts with the discourse marker 'discover'. This transitive dynamic verb gives off an enthusiastic essence, making the reader believe that what they will be 'discovering' will be exciting. Using this is trying to keep the actual readers engaged with the website and potentially lead them onto other pages of the website. Similarly, the third hyperlinked heading starts with the discourse marker 'Latest'. This superlative has connotations of 'breaking news' which the editor hopes will hook the reader into exploring the website more through clicking on the hyperlink, showing the affordances of the text.
The short imperatives used at the bottom of the page 'take part, 'see results' and 'find solutions' remind the reader of what is available for them to do on the website; the editor of the YouGov website seems to use these in a last gasp attempt to keep readers on the website by, not just making them titles, but hyperlinking them as well, again showing the affordances of the website, using influential power. The typographical effects of the titles are very simple, using a clear font colour, size and font, relating to the degree of formality of the text which is formal due to the nature of relating to the government using standard English, but does try to suit the needs of all potential readers by involving multi modal effects such as polls and images.
Text B - BBC news report
The writer of the BBC news report aims to grip the reader to the article by informing them of a lot of information about the election, using frequent short declaratives, packed with information. This relates to what the audience are hoping to see in the report, which is expected to be information on the election, which is easy to understand and read. This is shown through each individual piece of information having its own paragraph with simple typographical effects used such as simple font types and colours.
Comparison
Because the BBC need to engage the reader on a fairly dry subject, they use concise declaratives packed full of information to grip the reader. Similarly, the YouGov website uses a similar stance by using short quotes of information which relates to governmental debates to make sure the readers may come back to the website again.
Because the editor of the YouGov website wants to make online readers feel engaged with the topics surrounding the website, the polite interrogative "what would you like to do?" This interrogative is directly linked to multiple hyperlinks underneath showing what the actual readers can do. This clever use of graphology using hyperlinks shows the affordances of the text as the reader is directly involved straight away through the poll available under the hyperlinked title 'take part'. The cloaked imperative acting as a rhetorical interrogative below 'Would you support or oppose Britain phasing out the use of the one penny coin?' Coupled with the use of direct address, this shows that, relating to Hudson's dimensions of mode, the text has quite a high level of degree of interactiveness due to how easy it is to be involved in a poll relating to one of the main headings. In addition to this, the reader, which the editor of the website believe the implied readers are internet users who have interest in governmental debates, can also take part by creating an account, showing the type of intervactiveness is to connect with others online.
Another hyperlinked heading adopts the title 'Discover our products and services'. This imperative starts with the discourse marker 'discover'. This transitive dynamic verb gives off an enthusiastic essence, making the reader believe that what they will be 'discovering' will be exciting. Using this is trying to keep the actual readers engaged with the website and potentially lead them onto other pages of the website. Similarly, the third hyperlinked heading starts with the discourse marker 'Latest'. This superlative has connotations of 'breaking news' which the editor hopes will hook the reader into exploring the website more through clicking on the hyperlink, showing the affordances of the text.
The short imperatives used at the bottom of the page 'take part, 'see results' and 'find solutions' remind the reader of what is available for them to do on the website; the editor of the YouGov website seems to use these in a last gasp attempt to keep readers on the website by, not just making them titles, but hyperlinking them as well, again showing the affordances of the website, using influential power. The typographical effects of the titles are very simple, using a clear font colour, size and font, relating to the degree of formality of the text which is formal due to the nature of relating to the government using standard English, but does try to suit the needs of all potential readers by involving multi modal effects such as polls and images.
Text B - BBC news report
The writer of the BBC news report aims to grip the reader to the article by informing them of a lot of information about the election, using frequent short declaratives, packed with information. This relates to what the audience are hoping to see in the report, which is expected to be information on the election, which is easy to understand and read. This is shown through each individual piece of information having its own paragraph with simple typographical effects used such as simple font types and colours.
Comparison
Because the BBC need to engage the reader on a fairly dry subject, they use concise declaratives packed full of information to grip the reader. Similarly, the YouGov website uses a similar stance by using short quotes of information which relates to governmental debates to make sure the readers may come back to the website again.
Friday, 6 May 2016
Occupation article
Write an opinionated article about the use of work language in other contexts.
Audience - Guardian Comment is free readers.
Why our work should stay in the office
With our work troubles already hounding us enough, coming home to criticize and moan about our jobs, it seems that the language we use at work is also following us wherever we go, which, by all means, is not good.
When out and about, relaxing, work should be the last thing on people's minds and especially what comes out of their mouths. Despite this, I constantly hear people, unfortunately myself included, using jargon that can be understood, but should by all means be kept in the workplace. This exclusive lexis should be kept for people in our discourse communities like work colleagues who understand what is being said and why. According to theorist Goffman, your 'face needs', what people think about you due to how you come across in conversation, may be flouted and threatened due to people not knowing what you are going on about, or generally think you are trying to seem like a 'know it all', using specialist language that really doesn't suit the conversation - be it intentional or not. In addition to this, people may feel they are being overpowered in a conversation, due to such specialist terms being used that they are unable to contribute to a conversation, causing an unequal encounter.
In contrast to the thought that people believe that learning from work related language can help broaden your knowledge, it is clearly not the same for many aspects of work - should nurses or social workers be confusing young children with language of such complexity? Or teachers at home using their instrumental power on their children (who may be already tired of school talk) the same as they would in a classroom? It clearly wouldn't benefit anyone.
Audience - Guardian Comment is free readers.
Why our work should stay in the office
With our work troubles already hounding us enough, coming home to criticize and moan about our jobs, it seems that the language we use at work is also following us wherever we go, which, by all means, is not good.
When out and about, relaxing, work should be the last thing on people's minds and especially what comes out of their mouths. Despite this, I constantly hear people, unfortunately myself included, using jargon that can be understood, but should by all means be kept in the workplace. This exclusive lexis should be kept for people in our discourse communities like work colleagues who understand what is being said and why. According to theorist Goffman, your 'face needs', what people think about you due to how you come across in conversation, may be flouted and threatened due to people not knowing what you are going on about, or generally think you are trying to seem like a 'know it all', using specialist language that really doesn't suit the conversation - be it intentional or not. In addition to this, people may feel they are being overpowered in a conversation, due to such specialist terms being used that they are unable to contribute to a conversation, causing an unequal encounter.
In contrast to the thought that people believe that learning from work related language can help broaden your knowledge, it is clearly not the same for many aspects of work - should nurses or social workers be confusing young children with language of such complexity? Or teachers at home using their instrumental power on their children (who may be already tired of school talk) the same as they would in a classroom? It clearly wouldn't benefit anyone.
Thursday, 14 April 2016
Accent and Dialect article
Audience - regular guardian readers who are interested in the general language topic, surrounding accents, dialects and other issues.
Are we afraid of our own accent?
In light of the recent interview between Russell Brand and Ed Miliband where the latter seemed to be refining his accent to possibly 'connect' with his potential voters, is it true that we are afraid of our own accent, and need to regularly chop and change it to be liked and gain popularity?
Conformity is a regular occurrence in the social sphere - people change their beliefs and behaviours to be 'in' with the crowd and be liked, to gain popularity, to fit in. However, this is very similar to what is starting to occur with our accents; people are using 'covert prestige', a similar concept of changing their accents and dialects to fit in and avoid being judged (perhaps), but should people need to be converging their accents to suit the people they are with - can't we be happy and unafraid of being judged of our own voice?
This seems to be the case with Ed Miliband in his interview with Russell Brand, who slightly altered his original accent of Received Pronunciation using a slightly informal tone - 'yes' became 'yeah', glottal stops were used, and features were used such as elision shown through 'going to' becoming 'gonna' to potentially impress voters and converge with the people who will be voting in the general election. This just shows that even famous politicians are at threat of being pressured to change their accent to 'fit in', but why is this happening? According to language theorist Howard Giles' accommodation theory, Ed Miliband may have changed his accent to 'accommodate' the person he was talking to, in this case the strong Cockney Russell Brand, where he used a style of 'downward convergence'- a tool where general RP users tone down their accent when speaking to a person of lower class. Another example of this is the Queen who has been analysed to have toned down her strong RP to converge with the people, showing that even the most prestigious of people have, over time become uncomfortable in their own voice and have resorted to slight changes in their accent!
The opposite of downward convergence also exists, stated by Giles' accommodation theory, known as 'upward convergence', which is a more common occurrence where working class people eliminate strong regional features of accent and dialect when speaking to people of a higher class or users of RP; one example of this is covert prestige, where people use RP or standard English dialect to fit in with the crowd and to be accepted. However, why should this be the case - is it people feeling generally concerned about their accents, or has it come from persistent judging from prescriptivists who are overly obsessed with correct and 'acceptable' language use? A study done by William Labov named '4th floor study' shown that middle class workers in a prestigious retail store in New York used overt prestige when asked a question in which the sound of a 'rhotic R' would be used to prononce the word 4th, which is classed as an upper class style of language to use in the area. After being asked twice, the middle class workers, compared to upper class staff, had a much higher upward shift of the pronunciation of the rhotic R, maybe in response to not using it enough the first time, therefore being afraid of not sounding prestigious enough, but why is this? Can't we be comfortable with our own voice, a sign and reminder of our upbringing and where we come from?
Many language theorists suggest that, with people constantly moving up and down the country due to work and university, accents are becoming weaker due to 'dialect levelling', where people pick up regular occurrences of the accent where they are living and consequently drop parts of their own accent, but is this because of the reason generally thought of, or is it because people are not comfortable with their own accent and therefore want to feel respected and fit in by using features of the dialect where they are living - using covert prestige? Are students who go to university trying to gain a discourse community with fellow students, to share a lexical understanding, or are they changing because of being afraid of judgement, uncomfortable with their own dialect and voice? Whatever the reason, it is clear to see that prescriptive attitudes towards accents and dialects have caused people to change them to be respected and to fit into the social sphere.
Are we afraid of our own accent?
In light of the recent interview between Russell Brand and Ed Miliband where the latter seemed to be refining his accent to possibly 'connect' with his potential voters, is it true that we are afraid of our own accent, and need to regularly chop and change it to be liked and gain popularity?
Conformity is a regular occurrence in the social sphere - people change their beliefs and behaviours to be 'in' with the crowd and be liked, to gain popularity, to fit in. However, this is very similar to what is starting to occur with our accents; people are using 'covert prestige', a similar concept of changing their accents and dialects to fit in and avoid being judged (perhaps), but should people need to be converging their accents to suit the people they are with - can't we be happy and unafraid of being judged of our own voice?
This seems to be the case with Ed Miliband in his interview with Russell Brand, who slightly altered his original accent of Received Pronunciation using a slightly informal tone - 'yes' became 'yeah', glottal stops were used, and features were used such as elision shown through 'going to' becoming 'gonna' to potentially impress voters and converge with the people who will be voting in the general election. This just shows that even famous politicians are at threat of being pressured to change their accent to 'fit in', but why is this happening? According to language theorist Howard Giles' accommodation theory, Ed Miliband may have changed his accent to 'accommodate' the person he was talking to, in this case the strong Cockney Russell Brand, where he used a style of 'downward convergence'- a tool where general RP users tone down their accent when speaking to a person of lower class. Another example of this is the Queen who has been analysed to have toned down her strong RP to converge with the people, showing that even the most prestigious of people have, over time become uncomfortable in their own voice and have resorted to slight changes in their accent!
The opposite of downward convergence also exists, stated by Giles' accommodation theory, known as 'upward convergence', which is a more common occurrence where working class people eliminate strong regional features of accent and dialect when speaking to people of a higher class or users of RP; one example of this is covert prestige, where people use RP or standard English dialect to fit in with the crowd and to be accepted. However, why should this be the case - is it people feeling generally concerned about their accents, or has it come from persistent judging from prescriptivists who are overly obsessed with correct and 'acceptable' language use? A study done by William Labov named '4th floor study' shown that middle class workers in a prestigious retail store in New York used overt prestige when asked a question in which the sound of a 'rhotic R' would be used to prononce the word 4th, which is classed as an upper class style of language to use in the area. After being asked twice, the middle class workers, compared to upper class staff, had a much higher upward shift of the pronunciation of the rhotic R, maybe in response to not using it enough the first time, therefore being afraid of not sounding prestigious enough, but why is this? Can't we be comfortable with our own voice, a sign and reminder of our upbringing and where we come from?
Many language theorists suggest that, with people constantly moving up and down the country due to work and university, accents are becoming weaker due to 'dialect levelling', where people pick up regular occurrences of the accent where they are living and consequently drop parts of their own accent, but is this because of the reason generally thought of, or is it because people are not comfortable with their own accent and therefore want to feel respected and fit in by using features of the dialect where they are living - using covert prestige? Are students who go to university trying to gain a discourse community with fellow students, to share a lexical understanding, or are they changing because of being afraid of judgement, uncomfortable with their own dialect and voice? Whatever the reason, it is clear to see that prescriptive attitudes towards accents and dialects have caused people to change them to be respected and to fit into the social sphere.
Gender Speech
Audience - youth parliament hoping to make an impact in relation to gender equality issues.
Title - Will women ever be able to claim a public voice?
Why, in this modern era, are women still frowned upon when speaking in public, trying to 'claim' a public voice? Why has it got to a stage where they have to fight to even 'claim' a public voice? It shouldn't be this way, and if it continues can greatly affect our future in terms of parliament elections - why did our only female prime minister Margaret Thatcher need lessons on talking more like a man? Even she was affected by the opinion that women do not hold the power to establish authority in the public sphere!
Famous scholar Mary Beard once stated that women who try to 'claim' a public voice are treated badly, like 'freakish androgynes'! Can you let this continue? One factor contributing towards this is that women are not valued as highly as men when trying to establish authority because men are 'deep-voiced' with 'connotations of profoundity' causing women to be a 'mute in the public sphere' - all because of the sound of a voice! Why should that matter? Surely what comes out of someone's mouth is more important don't you think? This can lead to women being afraid to speak out in the future, and therefore things may never change - all because of the sound of their voice not being as 'deep-voiced' as men's, therefore without having connotations of authority and profoundity. Are you going to let this continue?
This problem leads to men dominating conversations due to their 'perceived superior status', opinionated by theorists Zimmerman and West; they also state that men generally talk for twice as long as women, holding the authority in a 'report style' explained by Deborah Tannen, where men hold centre stage in a conversation by talking in an anecdote style, showing they realise the power they have and therefore use that to totally block out women in a conversation, using constraints in the process causing unequal encounters where women may be 'shouted down'- this shouldn't be the case. In addition to this, men interrupt women over twice as much as women do so to men. Consequently, women may be nervous when in a position of talking in a conversation with men, as they know that men associate a conversation with a 'competition' explained by Tannen, and therefore maybe quick to shut them down, causing the women to use fillers and non fluency features such as stuttering.
This shows that women when in the company of men may never be able to express their thoughts in a manner they would like, and may then therefore never be able to 'claim' that public voice as they will never gain recognition of being confident when speaking in public. This is shown by Tannen stating that women prefer to speak in private in a rapport style, establishing connections, rather than in a competitive style like men do, as they may feel intimidated by men when speaking such as on the public stage - but why should they feel intimidated?
This could all change if men and women actually understood each other in conversation - in John Grey's book 'Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus' he states that there is a strong miscommunication between men and women, linking to Pamela Fishman's idea that communication regularly fails between men and women; women care more about language than men do, and therefore may be the reason for pauses and non-fluency features, to make sure what they say is correct and comprehensible! Maybe, if a step was made for the sexes to understand each others speech, then it may be the start of a long road to women feeling comfortable when 'claiming' a public voice, and men not to frown upon them in doing so.
Title - Will women ever be able to claim a public voice?
Why, in this modern era, are women still frowned upon when speaking in public, trying to 'claim' a public voice? Why has it got to a stage where they have to fight to even 'claim' a public voice? It shouldn't be this way, and if it continues can greatly affect our future in terms of parliament elections - why did our only female prime minister Margaret Thatcher need lessons on talking more like a man? Even she was affected by the opinion that women do not hold the power to establish authority in the public sphere!
Famous scholar Mary Beard once stated that women who try to 'claim' a public voice are treated badly, like 'freakish androgynes'! Can you let this continue? One factor contributing towards this is that women are not valued as highly as men when trying to establish authority because men are 'deep-voiced' with 'connotations of profoundity' causing women to be a 'mute in the public sphere' - all because of the sound of a voice! Why should that matter? Surely what comes out of someone's mouth is more important don't you think? This can lead to women being afraid to speak out in the future, and therefore things may never change - all because of the sound of their voice not being as 'deep-voiced' as men's, therefore without having connotations of authority and profoundity. Are you going to let this continue?
This problem leads to men dominating conversations due to their 'perceived superior status', opinionated by theorists Zimmerman and West; they also state that men generally talk for twice as long as women, holding the authority in a 'report style' explained by Deborah Tannen, where men hold centre stage in a conversation by talking in an anecdote style, showing they realise the power they have and therefore use that to totally block out women in a conversation, using constraints in the process causing unequal encounters where women may be 'shouted down'- this shouldn't be the case. In addition to this, men interrupt women over twice as much as women do so to men. Consequently, women may be nervous when in a position of talking in a conversation with men, as they know that men associate a conversation with a 'competition' explained by Tannen, and therefore maybe quick to shut them down, causing the women to use fillers and non fluency features such as stuttering.
This shows that women when in the company of men may never be able to express their thoughts in a manner they would like, and may then therefore never be able to 'claim' that public voice as they will never gain recognition of being confident when speaking in public. This is shown by Tannen stating that women prefer to speak in private in a rapport style, establishing connections, rather than in a competitive style like men do, as they may feel intimidated by men when speaking such as on the public stage - but why should they feel intimidated?
This could all change if men and women actually understood each other in conversation - in John Grey's book 'Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus' he states that there is a strong miscommunication between men and women, linking to Pamela Fishman's idea that communication regularly fails between men and women; women care more about language than men do, and therefore may be the reason for pauses and non-fluency features, to make sure what they say is correct and comprehensible! Maybe, if a step was made for the sexes to understand each others speech, then it may be the start of a long road to women feeling comfortable when 'claiming' a public voice, and men not to frown upon them in doing so.
Monday, 11 April 2016
How our language is changing due to gender issues
Audience - Guardian readers with interest in the English language.
Why is our language changing due to gender issues?
Despite believing we are a gender friendly community, equal to all, only recently has our language been changing due to issues regarding gender. Why were there issues in the first place? To what extent are these issues changing our language? you may ask...
According to many language theorists, it may actually be our views on language that is changing - not the language itself. Renowned gender theorist Robin Lakoff claimed that female language is 'deficient' compared to men's due to certain language features women use which supposedly show uncertainty and a weakness in language such as 'tag questions', added onto the ends of sentences to gain an understanding with the receiver such as "isn't it?" You know? In response to Lakoff believing women are 'deficient', Pamela Fishman claims that actually these uncertainty features women use are signs of showing power in the conversation without actually dominating it, dictating who speaks, co-operating with other members of the conversation. This adds a different perspective on the whole issue of gender equality in language, along with the straightforward approach Deborah Cameron has in insisting that men and women do not talk differently, therefore discounting the fact there are gender issues in language, as people 'do gender' - a way of talking in a way that suits your audience and situation.
Scholar Mary Beard once claimed that women who claim a public voice get treated badly - like 'freakish androgynes' - and are not valued as highly as men when seemingly trying to establish authority, declaring that women are a 'mute' in the public sphere. In addition to this, she later claimed that men are 'deep-voiced with connotations of profoundity', something that females are stereotypically not associated with, meaning men generally dominate conversations using their 'rapport' style according to Deborah Tannen, a way in which men hold centre stage through communication giving 'anecdote' style talks to maintain authority. Is our language changing because of this? To accommodate women without the 'connotations of profoundity'? This is shown through Margaret Thatcher having lessons to make her voice more 'manly', to sound like a person (man) who holds authority, showing that in the past people have tried changing their accent and language use. Was this a wise thing for her to reveal, or did that start the whole frenzy on sexism involved in language and why our language now has to change because of women not feeling 'valued' enough to appeal to be powerful when talking?
To 'put to bed' a lot of issues surrounding gender inequality in language, Gary Nunn's article suggested releasing a 'gender-neutral pronoun' - this way, people can have the choice of keeping themselves anonymous in many different scenarios by not giving away information on their gender, and can help with supposed sexist terms where men are perceived to be superior such as phrases like "it's every man for himself", and "man up" - both have connotations to strength and willpower, something stereotypically linked to men, and unfortunately not to women, linking to Mary Beard's thoughts on the matter.
In addition to this, changes have already been made in relation to a change in language due to gender issues, mainly relating to sexist terms, as many previous marked terms such as policeman and policewoman now becoming police officer to offer equality in occupational job roles.
Why is our language changing due to gender issues?
Despite believing we are a gender friendly community, equal to all, only recently has our language been changing due to issues regarding gender. Why were there issues in the first place? To what extent are these issues changing our language? you may ask...
According to many language theorists, it may actually be our views on language that is changing - not the language itself. Renowned gender theorist Robin Lakoff claimed that female language is 'deficient' compared to men's due to certain language features women use which supposedly show uncertainty and a weakness in language such as 'tag questions', added onto the ends of sentences to gain an understanding with the receiver such as "isn't it?" You know? In response to Lakoff believing women are 'deficient', Pamela Fishman claims that actually these uncertainty features women use are signs of showing power in the conversation without actually dominating it, dictating who speaks, co-operating with other members of the conversation. This adds a different perspective on the whole issue of gender equality in language, along with the straightforward approach Deborah Cameron has in insisting that men and women do not talk differently, therefore discounting the fact there are gender issues in language, as people 'do gender' - a way of talking in a way that suits your audience and situation.
Scholar Mary Beard once claimed that women who claim a public voice get treated badly - like 'freakish androgynes' - and are not valued as highly as men when seemingly trying to establish authority, declaring that women are a 'mute' in the public sphere. In addition to this, she later claimed that men are 'deep-voiced with connotations of profoundity', something that females are stereotypically not associated with, meaning men generally dominate conversations using their 'rapport' style according to Deborah Tannen, a way in which men hold centre stage through communication giving 'anecdote' style talks to maintain authority. Is our language changing because of this? To accommodate women without the 'connotations of profoundity'? This is shown through Margaret Thatcher having lessons to make her voice more 'manly', to sound like a person (man) who holds authority, showing that in the past people have tried changing their accent and language use. Was this a wise thing for her to reveal, or did that start the whole frenzy on sexism involved in language and why our language now has to change because of women not feeling 'valued' enough to appeal to be powerful when talking?
To 'put to bed' a lot of issues surrounding gender inequality in language, Gary Nunn's article suggested releasing a 'gender-neutral pronoun' - this way, people can have the choice of keeping themselves anonymous in many different scenarios by not giving away information on their gender, and can help with supposed sexist terms where men are perceived to be superior such as phrases like "it's every man for himself", and "man up" - both have connotations to strength and willpower, something stereotypically linked to men, and unfortunately not to women, linking to Mary Beard's thoughts on the matter.
In addition to this, changes have already been made in relation to a change in language due to gender issues, mainly relating to sexist terms, as many previous marked terms such as policeman and policewoman now becoming police officer to offer equality in occupational job roles.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)