The Role of Language In Promoting Social Harmony

Whilst in Australia we defend the right to free speech, we prioritise the right of each Australian to coexist with other Australians in an environment based on egalitarianism and does not tolerate discrimination in any form
Tangible evidence of this ideology can be found in our state and federal legislation which outlines the parameters for acceptable ways of using language which has manifested itself in.........

• The classification system which governs the screening of certain programs and films on television. Often shows  which contain taboo-breaching concepts such as profanity and discriminatory language are restricted to time slots later in the evening based on the assumption that younger people will be asleep at this time
• The rigid security measures implemented at the MCG where spectators have the opportunity to call the "Anti-Social Behaviour Number" to report aggressive or offensive behaviour. 
• The ejection and subsequent public lash back directed at the 13 year old girl who aimed a racial slur at Indigenous Australian AFL Player Adam Goodes this year as well as the reprimanding of Eddie McGuire who continued the offence by "jokingly" saying if Adam Goodes could open Melbourne's debut of King Kong during a radio broadcast
• Most Australian Schools have implemented an Anti-Bullying policy which aims to protect the victims and punish the perpetrators of both physical and verbal abuse
• The sacking of Perth radio "Shock Jock" Howard Sattler who had the audacity to question the sexuality of former PM Julia Gillard's long term parter Tim.
• The forced resignation of Liberal election candidate Kevin Baker who has been running a website containing sexist and racist content and of Peter Slipper who was found to have send text messages that were derogatory of women's genitalia
• The creation of the "Destroy the Joint" Facebook group that was inspired by chronic "Shock Jock" Alan Jones's statement that "Women were destroying the joint". The group targets feminist issues of national and international importance.
• The condemnation Tony Abbot experienced after publicly commented on the "sex appeal" of one of the female Liberal candidates. This was seen as socially divisive to many as it reinforces a patriarchal gender stereotype which measures a woman's worth only by her desirability and appearance
• On a fictional level; Jonah's (from Summer Heights High) infamous "puk you" towards his teacher symbolises his anti social behaviour which ultimately leads to his exclusion from the school community
• The tendency to cater to the positive face needs of others by employing terms of address which respect their seniority or position of authority or by using personal terms depending on the context. As evidenced by the criticism of Tony Abbott for his tendency to not refer to Julia Gillard by her full title.
• Trend towards non gendered terms
• Euphemistic expressions / politeness strategies to negotiate difficult or awkward topics which can potentially impose on one's negative face needs. For example Metro's "Pardon Our Progess" 
• Progress towards use of language choices which seek to clarify rather than obfuscate : Australian Electoral Commision's 2013 guide to the federal election which sought to maximise voter turnout. It achieved this by use of plain and standard English which avoided difficult language to maximise comprehension

These exemplify the significance of appropriateness in both personal and public domains in promoting social cohesion and solidarity amongst social groups

The Importance of Language in Ceremony and Ritual

Wendy Harmer : "My favourite theatre of all is to listen to the words which are offered next to a flickering candle; be it for a baptism, birthday, funeral or memorial service"

Language aids in framing the event and establishing a context thus they are central to our experience and the success of various rituals and ceremonies in our personal lives and in the public domain

The underpinning context (situational and cultural aspects) in which a particular ceremony often takes place can allude to the appropriate linguistic paradigm to utilise in it so we can both celebrate positive events and navigate difficult times without offending people

• The relative success of Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard's "Sorry" speeches in 2008 and 2013 respectively can be attributed largely to their descriptive awareness of the cultural and situational context and subsequent linguistic conventions underpinning the situation demonstrated in their speeches.
• The register utilised was highly formal and standard yet refrained from incorporating significantly elevated jargon which could have been detrimental to the coherence of the text (especially as it was spoken and levels of education varied throughout the audience in question)
• Repetition of the collective pronoun "we" sought to promote social cohesion and solidarity and lesson notions of social distance and hierarchy
• Repetition of the lexeme "sorry" and associated language was especially significant as in the aboriginal community the lexeme has particular connotations of sharing grief
• Figurative language such as 'shining a light" and "turning of a new page" has significant connotations of improving the lives for those who suffered under the forced adoption legislation
• In contrast, Tony Abbot encountered a great deal of criticism after using the noun phrase "birth parents" and the verb "relinguised" which have particular connotations that the victims of forced adoption were given up rather than viciously and forcefully removed

• The relative formality of the Australian Citizenship pledge is in congruence with the seriousness of the public commitment and the associated expectations and responsibilities. This is reflected in the elevated lexus "pledge" "uphold" and syntactical structure "from this time forward" which is crafted using front focus "whose democratic beliefs I share" to highlight the integral values in our society.

• Of course informality has a significant role to play in ceremony and ritual where the objective is to lessen social distance and promote solidarity and social cohesion. This can be seen on a personal level such as a 21st or 18th birthday party where humour can be achieved through slang or colloquial language and covert prestige elicited through in jokes and idiomatic language. This idea was put into effect in Malcolm Turnbull's eulogy for Robert Hughes were personal nicknames such as "WU" (wicked uncle), personal modes of address "Bob" and casual language "ace" "flogged" functioned as a marker of intimacy.
• Similarly, Kevin Rudd's penchant for idiomatic, quintessential Australian phrases such as "fair shake of the sauce bottle" demonstrate an desire to promote solidarity through the exploitation of the linguistic paradigm underpinning the social group to which his sppech was directed

The importance of language use in the public eye is exemplified in the employment of professional speech writers for senior-level elected officials and executives in the government and private sectors especially when covering events of great political or historical events

• Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating and U.S Presidents Richard Nixon, Barack Obama, George W. Bush and John F. Kennedy have employed speech writers during their time in power

The formulaic expressions we come to associate with particular events can seem tedious and lacking of individuality, but they provide structure and give us something to fall back on when words fail us, such as in the event of a tragedy because their familiarity reassures us. Such conventional language can also reflect our experiences and sense of identity.

• Euphemistic language such as "she's gone to a better place"
• Understanding of religious linguistic conventions reflect religious upbringing / significance of faith
• Those who comprise congregations come to understand certain linguistic cues offered by the Priest which signal the time to stand up, sit down, pray, be silent, speak etc

• In Australia today, many formal occasions tend to commence with a formalised and set "Acknowledgement of the Land" in which the traditional Indigenous custodians are rightfully shown respect. The fixed nature of this speech is integral to its function in asserting a united, unanimous show of respect towards Aboriginal Australians from which we inherited the land

• The traditional recitation of the Ode on ANZAC day which has remained unchanged since 1921 has a similar function in connoting the immense historical significance of those who fought for our country and providing a link to the past to ensure its perpetuation and relevance to contemporary Australia.

• However, in some instances, linguistic conventions underpinning ritual and ceremony can be subject to change in congruence with the contingency of societal values. The trend towards a traditional marriage's secular counterpart: a civil service has seen the omission of traditional language of particular significance "we are gathered here today under the eyes of God" in some cases. Similarly, the language used in this context is more flexible as people have the choice to omit certain aspects such as the verb "to obey" which is contradictory to contemporary perceptions on gender equality.

FUCK

That title probably caught your attention, right?

The attention-grabbing effect of this language can be attributed to the fact that the lexeme "fuck" is an expletive, a dysphemism for sexual intercourse (though this is subject to context - some social groups may find this term a pleasing substitute for "to have sexual intercourse") and falls within the semantic field of taboo.

Despite "fuck's" capacity to incite shock amongst an audience (the degree of this varies between different social groups as notions of taboo can be highly subjective), its potential is waning. If the Australian Sex Party's advertisement campaign for the recent Federal Election is any indication of the social climate, you can now say "fuck" on TV.. just not for very long. From that point you can say "fuck" and its present and past participle counterparts "fucked" and "fucking" over 200,000 times on Youtube. 

Further evidence of the contingent nature of social attitudes and the way in which they manifest themselves in notions of taboo and obscenity can be found within the research done by the Advertising Standards Bureau every few years to gauge what kind of language producers can get away with on television. In 2012 "bullshit" and a scarcely bleeped out  "fuck" were shown to randomly selected viewers and their reactions were gauged. By measuring the comparative degree of offensiveness of "bullshit" and "fuck" versus "fat arse" and "bloody idiot" which were tested in 2007, and the fact that a "very high level of community concern about all of them" according to the chief executive of the Advertising Standards Bureau, Fiona Jolly, Australian television viewers are becoming harder to offend.

Based on these recent findings and keeping in mind the general trajectory of expletive words in our language and culture, there will likely come a time when it will be okay to say "fuck" in situations where the aim is not just to elicit covert prestige amongst your peers.

Tony Abbott demonstrates an awareness of appropriateness (this is not a joke)

On the 3rd of September 2013  Tony Abbott was one of four politicians who delivered  a short pre-recorded pitch to the housemates of the Gold Coast's Big Brother House with the intention of rallying votes for the then-upcoming federal election. Both the short nature of the pitch and the audience to which it was directed necessitated a slightly different linguistic approach to be undertaken by Abbott in order to achieve his aim of gaining votes. 

Instead of bombarding the prospective voters with a political-jargon laden spiel on Liberal policy, Abbott tailored his speech to facilitate covert prestige and solidarity with his audience by means of:

•  Flanking himself with his two "not bad looking" daughters who are similar in age to the particular demographic to which his pitch was directed promotes his identity as a parent to which the house mates can relate
• Promoting his highly relatable identity as a "parent" and a "guy" functions to lessen the degree of social distance between him as a politician and them as civilians
• Catering to the positive face needs of his daughters by referring to them as his "best assets" by extension functions as a politeness strategy towards the house mates who are also "assets" according to "all parents"
• Linguistically, Abbott employs non-standard pronunciation of the verbs "want to" and "got to" by reducing them so as to mimic the casual, informal way in which these lexemes are typically used in spoken language by young people in particular. 
• The non standard lexeme "reckon" and reduction of "we have" function in a similar way
• Employing the collective pronoun "we" has a dual function in further promoting solidarity and rendering the house mates complicit to the contentions of Abbott that "we've gotta change the government that we've got". The degree of obligation is heightened connotations of high modality of the non standard verb "got to"
• Abbott ends his pitch on a politer note "so please don't forget to fill out those applications". This topic management ensures that the crux of the information is delivered last so as to ensure it is remembered by the house mates.

Abbott's unprecedented shift towards informality indicates an astute awareness of the descriptive concept of appropriateness rather than correctness. From the young age of his audience and the relaxed context in which he appears, Abbott was able to gauge that the most effective way of promoting himself was to manipulate the assumed linguistic paradigm of the house mates and make his pitch as relatable to them as possible through use of non standard language choices and assertion of common interests.

Is slang ruining the English language ?

NO !!!!!!!!!

Informal words and expressions that are not considered standard English - otherwise known as slang has always been a subject of great lament for prescriptivists who perceive it to be an indicator of a low or disreputable character and the  driving force in the "deterioration" of the English language. This contention is to ignore both the functions and history of slang. 

The use of the vernacular has always attracted criticism, particularly from older generations who feels as though the language innovations of the youth are ruining the language. This is often due to the inherent function of slang in defining a social group and asserting its values through language. Young people especially are experimental with their language across a range of contexts so as to express their different individual and social identities through building covert prestige. The tribal nature of slang as expressed by David Crystal "the chief use of slang is to show that you're one of the gang" means that it can isolate anyone who is not privvy to the linguistic paradigm of a particular social group. This is often the case with older generations who feel threatened when they don't understand what the kids are talking about.

This is nothing new, but thanks to the ubiquitous nature of technology and the increasing pervasiveness of social media, the slang that may have once been confined to one environment, such as school, is spread far and wide at an unprecedented rate. This concept is reflected in the prevalence of text speak such as "OMG" "lol" and "yolo" in the popular lexicon.

When considering whether young people are indeed destroying our language, it is imperative to think about it with an understanding of linguistic history. Words which we would all think of as Standard English such as "capture" "fun" "nowadays" and "pants" were once argued to be too informal in the 17th century by people like Samuel Johnson. In our own context, of course this notion seems ridiculous.

Despite this, the UK government is being warned that teenagers of today can "barely talk", possessing a vocabulary of only 800 words, much of which is comprised of text-speak and slang. This phenomenon is, apparently rendering teens as unemployable and is being blamed on the prevalence of technology and social media. However, these findings were based predominately upon transcripts of day-to-day communication with peers and similarly aged individuals. Given the social function of language to facilitate solidarity through covert prestige which, especially in young people, is achieved through a typically low level of formality and use of individualistic slang and idioms, these findings are flawed. In contrast to the study, Moniker Wagner (of the Victorian Association for the Teaching of English) states that in her 15 years of experience in the classroom, students have demonstrated and awareness of context and appropriateness, known linguistically as descriptivism, which sees them able to switch between essay writing language and playground language. Similarly, Monash University professor of linguistics Kate Burridge  backs up this claim, stating that young people in fact write very well, and not at all like how they speak (unless the context calls for it)

Interestingly,  in encouraging text-speak and slang within popular lexicon, it seems as though Electronically Mediated Communication is facilitating a shift in societal attitudes towards Standard and Non Standard varieties of English.

According to a recent study by Knox University in Galesburg, writers whose emails include more errors were believed to be more apathetic, and participants were more likely to assume the writer was a superior.  It seems that typo-laden, abbreviation-ridden and grammatically incorrect emails are perceived to be a sign of social dominance as it implies that the writer of the "sloppy" email is too busy to adhere to the Standard conventions of English and that their audience is not significant enough to warrant such attention to detail.

Similarly, deliberate lack of punctuation (specifically question marks) seems to insinuate a similar type of social hierarchy in by rendering the modality of a request higher to make them seem peremptory.  This phenomenon was addressed in a recent Huffington Post article by Susan Cain who contends that the elision of the question marks in question are not born from laziness, but deliberate social cues in an attempt to signal power and authority
As the shift towards descriptivism progresses, it is inevitable that young people will extend their already sufficient knowledge of context and social appropriateness. A negative approach to slang is to disregard its value. Slang includes some of the most vulgar, but equally expressive language in all of English. The fact that young people can adorn their language with such irony, creativity and wit whilst simultaneously building social connections is an undeniably positive thing. A prescriptivist approach to informality overlooks the value of slang in expressing insight into how we think and feel as humans as well as being a reflection of social climate and pop culture. 

More on the Misogyny Speech

This transcript is an excerpt from Former PM Julia Gillards 2013 monologue “opposing the motion”. Whilst the speech took place within the House of Representatives, various videos of the event soon went viral, thus expanding the speech's original intended audience. In drawing public attention the sexist behaviours of Tony Abbott, Gillard both diverted attention from the controversial issue involving the publication of Peter Slipper's derogatory text messages and successfully successfully awareness of the issue of misogyny is Australian politics.

The parliamentary context in which the discourse took place necessitates not only a formal register but also an adherence to the linguistic paradigm underpinning the official environment. This must be taking into consideration by the speaker in order to maintain a respectful identity. Gillard's use of formal modes of address and pronouns “Deputy Speaker” “Leader of the Opposition” “member for Mackellar” “The Government”, employment of euphemistic implicature “he needs a mirror”, political jargon“I rise to oppose the motion” and formal syntactic structures such as the passive voice “will not be lectured” are indicative of her awareness of the appropriate conventions of the context.

As the discourse is a monologue, Gillard holds the floor for the its entirety. Her authority is both enforced and undermined by interjections from the audience which signal support “hear hear” “absoloutely” and restlessness “order order”. The notion that the audience is in favour of Gillard during the extended periods of silence (which comprise the majority of their role in the discourse) is more ambiguous. Whilst Gillard intends to manipulate her audience into silence through building suspense in lines 42 to 55, their response could be due their obligation to be respectful of the official context and role of Gillard as Prime Minister. 

Gillard allocates stress and a louder pitch to certain words within utterances in order to render them more emphatic and emotive (lines 9 to 15). Contrastingly, Gillard employs a softer intonation in line 32 “thats what he needs to do” so as to permit the message to resonate with the audience. Similarly, the falling intonation allocated to certain utterances functions to generate a notion of emphatic finality. (line 21, 24 and 31). In conjunction with prosodic features, Gillard employs a repetition of lexemes such as “sexism” and “misogyny” and syntactic parallelism “not now, not ever” which work to further emphasise her argument.

The positive and negative face needs of Abbott are ignored by Gillard. Her accusatory statements which label him a sexist and misogynist cater neither for his desire to not be imposed upon by others or for his need to feel acknowledged and appreciated. The collective pronoun “The Government” further contributes this effect in presenting a cohesive, united front against Abbott which has significantly more effect than the use first person pronouns “I” and “my”.

In comparison, Gillard acknowledges the positive face needs of women (their desire to be seen and treated as equals to men) facing sexism in Australia by condemning misogynistic behaviour. This also caters for their need to not be imposed upon by the sexist agenda of Abbott.

Dear Missy..

This text is a reminder from a veterinary clinic aimed at is customers whose pets are due for their vaccination. Its dual function in both informing the customer of the necessity of the vaccination as well as the comical and rapport building elements of the text function to persuade the customer to pay for their services.

In addressing the letter to the dog rather than the human customer “Dear Missy” the text achieves a comedic element. This humour stems from the common, pragmatic knowledge insinuated by the author and inferred by the reader that dogs cannot actually read.

The text couches its modality and caters to the reader's negative face needs by continuing to refer to the dog rather than the customer and using less obligatory and indirect language such as “please” “your records indicate” and “ask”. Furthermore, other politeness strategies within the text cater to the reader's positive face needs “we know that your owners love you very much”.

In addition to the entertaining nature of the text, the intimate nature of the language further contributes to its relatively informal register. Utilising relatively casual and personal modes of address such as “you”, “your friends” and “us” rather than “the patient” and “the veterinarian” lessens the social distance between the medical experts and the consumer and thus generates a sense of rapport between them, making them more likely to take part in what the clinic is asking of them. The friendly nature of the opening and closing statements of the text “Gosh, doesn't time fly” and “looking forward to seeing you soon” have a similar function in rendering the text more conversational and less formal.

Notions of social distance are lessened further in the sign off to the text, where in conjunction with listing the various doctor's names, their dogs have also been listed. This facilitates rapport based on common knowledge and common interests between the author and the reader.

In conjunction with the humorous and rapport building elements of the text, the crucial component is formatted to appear distinguished from the rest “The vaccination and due date is;”. This aids textual coherence in directing the reader's attention to the crux of the text.