Language Issues in Public Discourse - Research Paper Example

? Topic Language Issues in Public Dis Language Issues in Modern Media supervisor etc can be either here or on a separate title page- could also include your name in the footnote of each page, on the left if you want to. Introduction and Outline The use of modern English and language generally, is influenced by trends within a modern and constantly changing world. As communication media change, influenced by technology, it is clear that the use of language, its structure and its meanings do adapt and become more appropriate to the context it is found in. This essay will explore three ways in which the English language is changing, and the discourse around those changes, as they are being debated and discussed in the media. Political language and how it changed during the Bush era in the United States is being discussed widely in academic circles and this phenomenon will be examined and analyzed briefly. The printed media particularly in Great Britain raises the question of American terms and their effect on English worldwide. Contemporary magazine and newspaper articles form the basis of the discussion of the British attitude to American language in this essay. Current discussions regarding spelling are examined, from the perspective of young people, citing as examples a web forum, and the transcript of a high school debate. Finally, the trend toward politically correct language is the focus, with spoken and institutionalized language being examined. In short, this essay will comment on the changing language and how these changes are perceived across a reasonably wide spectrum of English speakers. (Not included in word limit) The Essay When discourse is analyzed, the linguistic output of someone other than the analyst is examined (Brown & Yule, 1983: 2). This implies that the analyst also contributes his/her own meaning to the analysis, and that the context of more than just the words, and the grammar of the language are at play. Brown and Yule (1983: 3) further contend that the language may contain features such as “… hesitations, slips and non-standard forms” so that an analysis of written text on its own is perhaps never altogether complete. It is, however, also true that “ … the task is this: to think more deeply about the meanings we give people’s words do as to make ourselves better, more humane people and the world a better, more humane place.” (Gee, 2005: 3). Hence it is necessary to examine many aspects of language if a fuller understanding of the meaning of social worlds as all individuals experience them is to be reached. There are certain aspects of language that are clearly of some concern to analysts and general public commentators. Media, both print and electronic, carries a significant amount of comment on the changing nature of English. Sometimes these aspects are serious and of great importance in the formation of the societies and their attitudes, values and behaviors; sometimes they are less serious but still interesting from a social and psychological perspective. One area which does carry great weight is in the leadership of societies. The leaders of communities worldwide do use language to form meanings and the understanding of the public. Hence it is necessary that everyone remain aware of the possible hidden meaning and unrevealed intentions of leaders and particularly politicians. When politicians speak, it is widely accepted that their motives are not always directly connected to the words and language they are using. Inevitably, their language has characteristics that show the real intention of their words: to persuade the public that what they say is correct, and that they should be voted for in the next election. Elena Mihas of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee has examined and commented on the language used during the Bush era in the United States. She highlights specifically the metaphoric and euphemistic forms of language used by politicians in this period, in addition to examining the coherence, arguments, lexical style and the rhetorical features of politicians’ statements. After 9/11 the nature of the subsequent invasion of Iraq, and the continuing American hostilities in the Middle East came to be referred to particularly by past-President Bush as the “War on Terror” (Mihas, 2005: 135). The invasion of Iraq was also called the “liberation of Iraq”. These euphemistic terms serve to downplay the very devastating effects of the war in Iraq on both the local people and the American servicemen – war is a dangerous and unpleasant phenomenon, and actual people are killed. Americans may have been persuaded by these phrases that the war was justifiable, and that only the “terrorists” were killed. Evidently this was not so. Additionally, sympathy for the many civilian Iraqis who have died may be negated by the idea that they were liberated from subjugation and oppression. In reality the Iraqis had and still have a foreign power in their country, determining their future. Even in the most liberal of interpretations, they are not a liberated population. Such euphemisms are supplemented by the use of metaphorical language, to demonize the people the politicians would like the public to perceive as dangerous and threatening. Mihas (2005: 136) cites the phrase “Axis of Evil” used to describe the nations of Iraq, Iran and North Korea. This comparison is resonant of World War Two, with the Axis powers – Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperialist Japan – as opposed to the Allied powers – the US, the UK and allies. Adding the moral dimension, by portraying these personified nations as evil, goes further toward persuading the American public that any force used against the people of those countries is justified. Metaphorical frameworks were also used to lessen the seriousness of the war in the minds of people worldwide. Past-President Bush referred to the war in Iraq by saying that it was a close race, and other opposition politicians said that Bush would have to “pick up his game” in Iraq (Mihas, 2005: 136). These linguistic devices were selected consciously to shape the way people view the world. Americans had to believe that the foreign aggression was justifiable. Thus the belief that morality is strength and that war is a game to be won at all costs but not to be taken so seriously, were intentionally planted into people’s minds during this political era. Not all language is however so intentionally planned to persuade in quite so sinister a manner. Matthew Engel, a columnist for the Financial Times of London writes of the latest change to English in Britain as influenced by the USA: “The first get-go of spring. It was on the BBC Breakfast programme on May 11: a presenter was wittering, and distinctly said that something-or-other had been clear ‘from the get-go’”. His perspective is very definitely that the influence of American English on standard or traditional English is negative. Further examples he cites are “hospitalize” and “do the math” among others. Both these are very different from the original words in British English. They would say “to be admitted to hospital” and “do the maths”. The implication of “hospitalize” could, absurdly, be interpreted to mean that someone should become more like a hospital, in the same way that “to civilize” means to change someone’s behavior so that it is closer to the culture of the dominant society. By not adding the “s” to “math”, the stem word, by implication would have to be “mathematic” rather than “mathematics”. In a matter as seemingly simple as a date format, American use is criticized by Engel. Traditionally, the eleventh day of September will have been “11/9”, with the month represented after the day of the month. Universally American use has changed this to the instantly recognizable “9/11” (see Engel 2011). And a phrase such as “out of the closet” is widely used in the United States and universally, and recognized to mean that someone’s real intentions, characteristics and thoughts should be publicly shared. Even if the word “closet” is not understood everywhere, the meaning of this phrase is – in UK English, the word for “closet” is “cupboard”. Yet the meaning of the phrase is understood, even if the unusual (for a Briton) word is used. The perspective that Engel presents is fairly balanced, however. He acknowledges that British English has borrowed from American English for 200 years and that some value has been gained by English users worldwide. At the same time he encourages people to resist the changes, and warns that language just comes to reflect the actual societal changes that have taken place. In the fields of politics and the law, Britain named a “National Security Council” in 2010, and a Supreme Court, as replacement names for the Internal Security Bureau and the High Court. These American-inspired terms may certainly be examples of the predominance of American culture and its institutions in the psyche of individuals worldwide. The expansion of the American entertainment industry into every English-speaking country on the planet has made it possible that even a culture as old as that of Britain is adopting American terminology in its institutions. Whether this is positive or negative remains to be seen. It is not necessarily true that the institutions and systems which work in United States society and government are superior to the institutions and systems elsewhere. Engel claims that the process evolving between American and British English is entirely unidirectional, though. This strengthens the assertion that America is culturally influencing the world, as there is no need for Americans to adopt language from other societies due to their dominance in cultural, political and economic spheres. And it is this influence which causes the resentment. As Engel closes his article, there seem to be: “millions of intelligent Britons out there who wince as often as I do every time they hear a witless Americanism introduced into British discourse.” (Engel, 2011). The article referred to in the previous paragraphs also names American spelling as an area in which more traditional forms of English are being changed. Spelling is a controversial aspect of language, in that there are proponents for maintaining and improving the existing rules and frameworks of spelling, as they have been in existence in Britain for many years; and there are those who would prefer spelling rules to change according to modern convention and use of writing. So, for example, the influence of cellular telephone use, and the language of texting would be taken into consideration to help form a new spelling system. This question is debated even at the level of high school debating, and an interesting argument appears online at the “Debatabase” website, by Alistair Endersby. His premise is that the spelling of English should be made simpler, more predictable and more logical in order to ensure that English can be more effectively learnt by schoolchildren, as well as adults who assimilate the language. It is so that English does have examples of spelling which seem on the face of it to be illogical: “comb”, “tomb” and “bomb” should rhyme, for example; “cough” should perhaps be spelt “coff” or even “kof”; “Wednesday” is just not spelt the way it is generally said. Endersby proposes that a simper spelling system would enable people to learn English more rapidly, and improve academic performance among English speakers, as less time would be spent learning the rules, and that more time could consequently be spent on the understanding of written text at school level. Exactly the converse point of view is raised by another web-user, “memejk1188” on an open web forum. This writer proposes that spelling is something that the schools and education systems in English- speaking countries are failing in and that hence more illiteracy and inability to communicate clearly are becoming evident (see: Tolunaquick.com). This point of view, though, can be seen to have as its origin the idea that only the well-educated can spell, and that the ability to spell is evidence of not only better education but better worth as a human being, and higher social status. An organization that particularly concerns itself with comment and debate regarding spelling is the ESS – the English Spelling Society – available at www.tess.com. Bob Brown, a member of this society, argues convincingly for spelling reform. He cites evidence in English speaking countries that a large percentage of English speakers with clear literacy-related problems. Particularly, he promotes the idea that spelling could be improved by changing the system, so that the spelling of words becomes more predictable to the user. This would be accomplished by making the spelling of words closer to the phonetic sound of words, and reducing the redundancy of spelling, so that one form spells one sound, rather than the many possible sounds created by particular groups of letters in English. He reminds the reader of the reform of spelling in 1906, in the United States, when so-called American spelling was adopted – mostly the “u” was dropped when used in combination with “o” as in “favour” and “favor”. This change has not significantly altered the way people communicate, nor has it made it impossible for the rest of the English-speaking world to understand writing from the United States. Most English users on the planet are second-language users (Brown at www.tess.com). This must argue for the consideration of such people in the formation of a new spelling system. The simplification of rules and methods must, though, take into consideration that a Standard English is required to accommodate the continued us of English as the near-universal language of finance, economics, academia and entertainment worldwide. For example the pronunciation of words differs widely due to the accents of speakers from different countries, and this argues against a spelling system that relies heavily on phonetic systems. It can be observed, though, that a kind of “oral writing” does exist. On the Internet, generally, in chat rooms or on forum sites, any issue can be found, and contributors are able to raise their own opinions while receiving feedback from other users. Many of these forums enable English speakers from all over the world to communicate effectively with one another. It seems from casual observation that each forum has its own rules about language use. Spelling, for one thing, seems not to be taken too seriously. The words used need only to be recognizable in order for other users to engage in reciprocal communication. Conventional spelling rules are used by some, and commentary is made about spelling, but the real focus is the debate, the information and the communication possible in these arenas. The sense that being able to spell qualifies the individual to participate is absent, and it is clear that no hierarchies or status are implied by the spelling of the communication, only by the quality of the opinions expressed. Leading from this claim regarding the quality of the ideas expressed, the consideration of the move to politically correct language in English worldwide gives some insight into the changes apparent in the use of the language, and the points of view of English users worldwide. This kind of language usage presupposes that a certain group, and the individuals within that group, will be offended on some level by the use of particular words or phrasing of language. Very clearly, language which could be defined as politically correct (or by implication as politically incorrect) is tied to the social, cultural and especially political changes occurring in societies around the world. A democratic, and human rights culture is being adopted by more and more cultures and societies across the world, and English does reflect the thinking that goes along with such political and philosophical change. Changing language and its use in this way is an attempt to remove all evidence of bias from the language, so as not to offend anyone. Thus obvious examples exist in racially offensive, or gender biased words and phrases – these certainly need to be changed, but it is also true that examples of politically correct language can become amusing in that they change meaning insignificantly, and the people they are trying to “protect” from being offended were not offended in the first place. The Global language Monitor, in its sixth annual survey of politically incorrect language, lists the word “minority” as one of the top politically incorrect words of 2009. It is argued that this word should be avoided because it may cause offense to minorities. In 2005, for example, a reporter from the BBC named those responsible for the bombing of tube stations in London “misguided criminals” so as to avoid the word “terrorist”. It is ironic that, as mentioned earlier in this essay, “terror” and “terrorist” became the words of choice in the USA after 9/11. It is clear that politically correct language is part of the belief that all people are equal, and the democratic ideal. The offense caused by certain terms is obvious. But the neutralization of language can sometimes, as indicated here, be absurd. One example of this trend illustrates the overly-sensitive approach possible: the children’s fairy tale the “Three Little Pigs” was retold as a story named “Three Little Cowboy Builders”. Judges of a competition into which this story was entered commented: “the use of pigs raises cultural issues”; that the story “alienate(s) parts of the workforce”; and asked the question: “Is it true that all builders are cowboys, builders get their work blown down, and that builders are like pigs?” (The Global Language Monitor, 2011) “Intrinsic Aptitude” (or lack thereof) is a more serious example cited by the Global Language Monitor. Lawrence Summers, the president of Harvard, suggested that intrinsic aptitude may explain why women are underrepresented in engineering and science. The implication of this is that women are intellectually incapable of a particular kind of thinking, and plays into an age-old stereotype of women as inferior to men. The question must be asked though, as to whether women were offended by the phrase, or the intention of the phrase? It appears that the president of the university was revealing his own bias and preconceptions, and that the words themselves reflected that. The intrinsic aptitude of someone to become an engineer cannot be questioned on an individual basis. But when the lack of that intrinsic aptitude is attributed to an entire gender class in society, it is certainly offensive. While the trends named in this essay are not definitive in terms of English generally, they do reflect some aspects of public discourse which do affect the everyday lives of people. It is important to track the effect of politically correct language on the individual and on the social world; a radical change is spelling systems will make life easier, or more difficult, for many; for people outside the United States, the influence American culture and American English have on their own societies is threatening at times, and welcomed at times; and within the United States, an awareness of how the public psyche can be manipulated by language is essential if a free and open society is to be maintained. William Matthew McCarter suggests that public discourse should be improved (www.tikkunmagazine.com, 2011). He suggests that calls for “civility in public discourse” are widespread, and that certain aspects of public discourse reflect societies that are becoming less effective and sound. When public figures, in public utterances call each other names, for example, the degradation of the society at large is clear. It is also problematic when public discourse is inaccurate, unclear, or imprecise. Even more so, when it is irrelevant it does not add value to the society, or serve to improve the lives of the public at large. In the English speaking world, the print media and increasingly electronic media shape public discourse, and the responsibility for the formation of individuals’ and group attitudes can be placed firmly with the media. When politicians speak, when celebrities speak, even when the victims of disaster speak, the media communicates their messages to the public in pre-deigned, calculated ways. It is essential that the full meaning of such communication is understood. If the world is to become a better, more humane place, and individuals are to become better, more humane individuals, then understanding public discourse is vital. References Brown, G. & Yule, G. (1983) Discourse Analysis Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 2-6 Derrida, J. (1884) Margins of Philosophy Chicago: University of Chicago Press Endersby, A. (2011) English Language Spelling Reform at www.debatabase.com accessed June 2, 2011. Engels, M. (2011) Say no to the get-go! Americanisms swamping English, so wake up and smell the coffee The Financial Mail: Mail Online at www.mailonline.uk accessed June 4, 2011 Foucault, M. The Order of Things: An Archeology of Human Science New York: Vintage Gee, J. P. (2005) An Introduction to Discourse Analysis New York: Routledge: 3 McCarter, W.M. (2011) Some Ways to Improve Public Discourse at www.tikkunmagazine.com accessed June 4, 2011 Mihas, E. (2005) Non-literal Language in Political Discourse Working Papers in Linguistics 5: Proceedings of WIGL 2006: 134-139 Tolunaquick.com accessed June 1, 2011 The Global language Monitor at www.globallanguagemonitor.co.uk accessed June 1, 2011 Witshge, T. (2008) Examining Public Discourse in Context: A mixed method approach in Javnost – The Public Vol, 15 (2008) No. 2; 75-92 Read More