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.  

The surprising functions of Function Words

Psychologist James Pennebaker contends that identity-comprising qualities such as social class, economic status, gender, wealth and power dynamics of individuals can be indicated by the ways in which one uses function words. 

Functions words express a grammatical or structural relationship with other words in a sentence. They include things like " pronouns (such as I, you, they), articles (a, an, the), prepositions (to, of, for) and auxiliary verbs (is, am, have)", things which Pennebaker refers to as the ‘connective tissue of language’. After much research, Pennebaker has demonstrated that these seemingly insignificant particles of language have the ability to illustrate the power dynamic between two interlocutors and their relative social status by how frequently they use "I" in a conversation.

Pennebaker contends that "People's pronouns track their focus of attention. If someone is anxious, self-conscious, in pain or depressed, they pay more attention to themselves". His study  found that an individual with lower social status will use "I" less than those of a higher status. This is due to the fact that the individual of a lower social status will be more self conscious of how they are being perceived, and frequent use of "I" is indicative of a "verbal fidgeting"

In congruence with contemporary linguistic beliefs, Pennebaker found that when two people have a positive relationship, their linguistic features will evolve to subconsciously mimic each other. This "verbal mirroring" explains why people belonging to the same social group will often utilise language in similar ways, and further confirms the notion of language's ability to assert in group solidarity and belonging.

dint hav tym 2 wryt tytl 2 busy

In language use, Standard English is considered by many to be a baseline of excellence and correctness from which all other variants are gauged. Its potential to elicit overt prestige and connote authority makes it the default variant utilised in formal, official contexts where one needs to construct an identity of capability and of social clout.

Obversely, non standard variants of English function to promote in-group solidarity in their facilitation of covert prestige. Furthermore, any deviation from the conventions of Standard English  in formal contexts can be render one as unintelligent or incapable or even offensive in not adhering to the linguistic paradigm necessitated by the official nature of the context.

However, it seems as though Electronically Mediated Communication is facilitating a shift in these preconceived societal attitudes towards Standard and Non Standard varieties of English.

According to a recent study by Knox College 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

Instigators of Language Change : Old vs. Young

A popular belief in regards to language change contends that the coinage of neologisms and use of slang and colloquial language are solely the domain of the younger generation. However, this is a simplified view of the social functions of language. Language change occurs in diverse forms for diverse needs, therefore it cannot simply be one age group that instigates language change.

Certainly for younger people, using language in new and often non standard ways functions to promote solidarity within a social group to gain them covert prestige in order to establish and continually reinforce their identity. However, adults also instigate language change particularly in their specialised field by creating jargon, adapting foreign words to their own foundation of language and creating the attitude towards language through education of younger generations.

The young have been rapidly coining new terms that have become integrated into every-day vernacular due to the ubiquitous nature of electronically mediated communication (which can be accredited to the digital revolution that is currently underway). Some of the most well known terms that have transcended their digital contexts include “lol, ceebs, wtf, omg, yolo, hashtag”. The commodification of some of these words into dictionaries such as the Macquarie, Online Oxford Dictionary and certainly their ubiquitous use in spoken language is evidence of their popularity. 

Evidence of language change isn't restricting solely to the domain of lexicology.  It is prevalent too in the syntax associated with electronically mediated technology. Due to its rapid nature, terms such as the past tense "has" are being compacted to "how's" as in “how’s your day been?”. Furthermore, the excessive use of punctuation (particularly exclamation marks and question marks) is another example of language change instigated by the young as they compensate for the need to express emotion through a medium that inhibits such expression. The excessive use of letters and capitalisation to graphemically convey the prosodic features of spoken language are employed in a similar way.

Language change can only be considered successful if the majority are implementing them regularly. Being unaware of the implicature, connotations or accepted use of a term can lead to a feeling of social instability or being "out of the loop" and thus can render one not privvy to the kind of covert prestige that adept users of language have access to. Thus proficient use of neologisms is desirable in many contexts and this encourages its pervasive nature.

The term “hashtag”, originating from twitter for technological purposes has now been integrated into spoken discourse as a result of the ubiquity of and access to social media in today's society. It is used as an intensifier that signals in group membership by "tagging" certain ideas or concepts that other people relate to. Linguist Ben Zimmer of the Visual Thesaurus states that “[hashtags] show that you’re part of a community that shares these conventions, to show that you’re playing the game.” This affirms the idea that the young drive language change as they are experimenting with language both innovating and conforming to build in group membership in order to aide them establishing and affirming their identity. Furthermore, as new language pervades general language use, other (older) people latch onto terms to be perceived as digitally aware and up to date.

It seems that compared to younger people, the language changes instigated by adults are considered to be more permanent. This is due to the fleeting nature of slang (which is the predominant area in which young people instigate change) but also due to the belief that with age comes maturity and expertise and thus adults are more successful as the young in driving language change. Language change instigated by adults is evident in the addition of jargon is specific fields such as politics. In last year’s election campaign the term “sand-bagging” was adapted from the Americanism “pork-barrelling” to refer to doling out money to marginal seats. Similarly, John Howard adapted the American term for “water-cooler” topics – that is, the dominant policy issues of the day which captivated mainstream swinging voters – to “barbecue stoppers”. These examples further exemplify how adults also are more likely to adapt terms as they are more resolute in their language therefore go to greater lengthens to adapt it to a foundation that they are familiar with.

As with slang, jargon promotes in group membership and excludes others who are not proficient users of the technical language relating to a specialist field. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the complex language utilised within these domains, as it is often prescribed by the complexity of the concepts being discussed. The issue at hand is the discrepancy between the specialist's level of knowledge and the general public's level of knowledge and how this is accounted for (or not accounted for) when communicating. Recently, people have demanded more clarity in the language directed to them, an example of this is in on the new style guide on the www.gov.uk website published on July 26th 2013. The article poses that political figures should avoid using jargon as it promotes language manipulation by obfuscating the reality. This demonstrates that not only do adults drive language change, but that they use this to strengthen their connection to other adults, perhaps of the same profession in order to increase their sense of belonging thus authority in a field. And some also (unfortunately) use it to purposefully alienate people and enforce social distance and social hierarchy.

Attitudes towards language are based on the education one is provided with by the institution that is run by adults. Education's influence on language change is evident through comparison of past and present teaching models. Since Federation and up until 20-30 years ago, the education system took a very prescriptive approach, influencing young students to believe that their language must abide by a set of strict rules and anything that strays from these rules is unacceptable. Nowadays the education system is far more descriptive approach. This facilitates students to be more innovative with their language use. The effect of this educational approach is evident in the many linguistic initiatives constructed by the young, such as lolcat memes which initiated from a young male to his girlfriend on Facebook and grew to be worth more than 2 million dollars, and now has its own lolcats bible. This illustrates the great influence adults have on changing attitudes towards language simply by being the educators for the young.

Language change occurs as people develop their language use to better suit their needs. For the young it is to establish and continually reinforce their individual and group identities by being innovative with language as understanding the language paradigms of their various social groups and conforming accordingly. Amongst the adults, language change occurs to strengthen one’s position in a field by coining new jargon or adapting foreign words to make them unique. Furthermore it is to improve the educational system for the younger generations and thereby influence the attitude towards language use in society. Hence, language change is driven by people of all ages as they adapt to their changing needs through life.

Political Correctness and Taboo

"If we use a word, our listeners naturally assume we have used it intentionally" - David Crystal

In order to maintain an face-saving / reinforcing and positive identity when communicating with others, it is crucial that we develop the ability to anticipate the nuances of our language across various contexts and learn to control them.

Furthermore, we need to have awareness of the ever-evolving attitudes towards language use and tailor our own language in accordance to them in order to maintain a positive identity. This is exemplified in the notion of taboo. The notion of taboo involves profanity, expletives, gestures and other social behaviours that are interpreted as inappropriate or rude in a particular context. The of the degree to which something has the ability to incite shock or offence within an audience are dependent on pre existing social conventions and attitudes within a given context, the relationship between the speaker and the audience and the topic at hand.

In contemporary Australian society, the most sensitive domains relate to gender, race and sexual orientation, and this is reflected in the potential for sexist, racist and homophobic language to create uproar within the community. These notions have been exemplified recently in Australian media with the Adam Goodes incident where a 13 year old girl was removed from an AFL match after calling him an "ape" at Goodes' command. Similarly, Julia Gillard was applauded in her speech in the House of Representatives earlier in 2013 where she called out the Leader of the Opposition's misogynistic behaviour.

The Political Correctness movement began in the 1980s and saw an increasing number of people becoming aware of the potentially discriminatory implications of English and subsequently seeking to eradicate them through purporting a more neutral language. They wanted to substitute things like the "Generic-He" for a more neutralised and inclusive language. Their naive perception was that is offensive language could be eradicated, social change would follow naturally. Their lack of the nature of language saw that the offensive connotations associated with the word "disabled" for example, were soon transferred to its "neutral" replacement term "intellectually handicapped" in "disabled"'s absence.

More issues came about when there were disagreements about what exactly constitutes an offensive term and the fact that is a nigh on impossible to monitor spontaneous speech and eradicate the idiomatic habits of a lifetime. One may refer to a friend as a "fucking cunt" as a term of endearment or as one to elicit maximal offence  It is entirely context dependent. 

 

Jargon vs. Speaking Plainly

"Communication is a two way enterprise, a shared responsibility" - David Crystal

The vocabulary and grammar of medicine, law and bureaucracy is often inaccessible to the average person (average being not a specialised in a given field)

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the complex language utilised within these domains, as it is often prescribed by the complexity of the concepts being discussed. The issue at hand is the discrepancy between the specialist's level of knowledge and the general public's level of knowledge and how this is accounted for (or not accounted for) when communicating

There are divided opinions on whether keeping language inaccessible to the general public is intention or not, and there is evidence for both arguments. Firstly some people claim ignorance to the fact that the way in which they communicate to individuals outside of their specialist field is confusing them. More insidiously, complex language to the untrained ear can be a truth-concealing obfuscation that is designed to keep people out of the loop in order to emphasise concepts like social hierarchy, social distance and notions of authority and prestige. Given that in contemporary society the solidarity / intimacy function is outweighing its function to reinforce the aforementioned notions designed to segregate people, the employment of difficult language for intentional obfuscation is frowned upon and less common. 

The Plain English Movement accounts for both sides of the coin. It was a piece of social engineering that attempted to redress societal inequalities. The intended audience was the average person struggling with the complexities of law, government, banks and insurance jargons. It has been shown to benefit both the institutions by saving them time and money in avoiding the potential consequences of poor document writing and poor reception by the general public as well as the audience who now find themselves able to read their bank statements without a dictionary in hand. 

Timeline 

1978 - President Carter ordered that all regulations be written in Plain English, which lead to a huge revision of legislation and increased awareness 

1979 - The UK's Plain English campaign was launched by publicly denouncing gobbledegook (Language that is meaningless or is made unintelligible by excessive use of abstruse technical terms) in the shredding of confusing government forms in Parliament Square

1985 - By this time over 21,000 documents had been revised and a further 15,000 withdrawn

1990 - The Plain English Movement set forth a list of criterion comprising of elements which would ensure a document was written in adherence to Plain English Standards. These included

• 15-20 word sentence length
• Easy to read format 
• Active verbs
• Conciseness
• Intimate / personal pronouns
• Short average line length

The Plain English Movement is still active today in the annual Plain English Speaking Awards which celebrate concisely informative writing and vilify obfuscation and gobbledegook by giving out the "Golden Bull Award"

In the U.S the DoubleSpeak awards are presented by the National Council of Teachers of English to a public figure who uses language that is deceptive, evasive, euphemistic or otherwise obfuscating. 

It must be remembered that sometimes there is a need for evasive terminology. Using language that is face saving and sympathetic and euphemistic can avoid emotional pain or alleviate harsh news.

Slang vs. Speaking Correctly

"The chief use of slang, is to show that you're one of the gang" - David Crystal

This quote captures the idea that the function of slang is to identify a social group which is very conscious of its identity. 

Slang can be defined as "informal words and expressions that are not considered standard in the speaker's language or dialect but are considered acceptable in certain social settings". 

Everyone belongs to a range of "gangs" or social groups and this membership can be demonstrated and enforced through utilising the language deemed appropriate in that context. The ability to do so which stems from an understanding of the values and conventions underpinning the ideology of that group

Membership to different groups can indicate a lot about one's own individual identity. Factors such as age, ethnicity, occupation gender, education and personal values can be reflected through the social groups one associates with. 

The nature of slang means that it tends not to be used for a very long time. It either become part of general usage (as in Whatever) or stops being trendy. This idea however, is subjective and not absoloute. It is never possible to be completely definite about the currency of words within the spoken mode of English. As slang can often signal in-group membership, if a particular colloquialism transcends its original social group and pervades general usage, its value within the initial group is diminished and it no longer just signals belonging to one group. 

This notion was exemplified in the 1990s with the rise and fall of the colloquialism "Bling Bling". Initially coined amongst the US rap music scene to denote any kind of exuberant clothing accoutrements, the success of the song in which it was used meant that people outside of the initial social group began to incorporate it into their vernacular. The popularity saw the word used without the reduplication and an expansion in its connotations as a result of the word being used outside of its original context (eg: Mr. Bling - tooth specialist). However, the adaptation of "Bling" by the middle class has rendered it useless to the US rapping community because it no longer signifies in group membership and solidarity for them

The high turnover rate of slang is evidence of its social function to promote in-group solidarity and exclude others. Its short lived nature is due to the fact that once a colloquialism is incorporated into the idiolects of members outside of the social group in which it was originally used, its potential to signal in-group membership is diminished. For example, the term "dropping" amongst some social groups refers to the ingestion of an illicit drug in the form of a pill.It many social groups it has replaced the now passe term "gacked". Speaking in these obscured terms ensures that passers by and eavesdroppers are oblivious to the nature of the conversation whilst promoting social cohesion based on common knowledge within a group.

Some people perceive slang to be the sole domain of "persons of a low or disreputable character" and the driving force in the deterioration of the English language. This contention is based on a prescriptivist (strive for correctness rather than appropriateness) perception of language and 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 and of course a means of indicating social belonging. Slang includes some of the most vulgar, but equally expressive language in all of English, linguist Eric Partridge captured this in saying that "[slang is] the acme and quintessence of spoken and informal language". 

In an unfamiliar context where we will be pinpointed socially, such as meeting a stranger or in a job interview, we tend to adhere to the conventions of Standard English in order to maintain face. Due to Standard English's connotations of overt prestige, its ability to promote in-group solidarity comparatively less than non standard variants of English, unless we are trying to signal belonging to an elite or academic group. 

In a similar way, the quintessentially Australian, non-standard, casual mode of address "mate" not only has the communicative / transactional function of its formal, standard counterparts "Mr and Mrs", it also promotes solidarity in its friendly connotations and intimate nature. Furthermore, hyper-formal modes of address "sir" and "madame" work in the complete opposite direction to establish and reinforce segregating notions of social distance and social hierarchy. 

The Importance of Social Variety

One in four Australian workers was born overseas

17 per cent of workers hail from non-English speaking countries

It is statistics like these which have instigated ideas such as the recently-launched "harmony guide" by the Federation of Ethnic Communities' Councils of Australia in a bid to help make workplaces more migrant friendly.

The document focuses heavily on the types of language utilised by "native employees" (i.e those who were born in Australia and were raised speaking Australian English as their first language". Its policies include:

• Avoid using the word "ethnic" as it connotes racial slurs and stereotypes particularly of European and Middle Eastern heritage. Instead, the initialism CALD (standing for Culturally and Linguistically Diverse) should be used.
• Avoid terms that may be percieved as offensive such as "bloody hell" within the vernacular so as to not appear hostile or offensive
• Be cautious when using Australianisms and linguistic markers of the Australian Identity as it can be difficult to understand to people who aren't familiar with the sociolect

Despite FECCA's claim that they are "not trying to be politically correct, but to give a sense of what's meaningful", the entire document not only seems overly self-concious and slightly patronising to "CALD's" and "native Australians" alike - it completely disregards the importance social variation of language within any given community.

The ways in which we use language can inadvertently reflect or self consciously construct a particular identity through our syntax, vocabulary and phonology. These aspects form markers of class, education, age, gender, socioeconomic status and more. Furthermore, one of the typifying characteristics of a proficient user of language is one's ability to manipulate the regular linguistic paradigm of their language to adapt to varying contexts.

Whilst the document is well-intentioned, encouraging language users to dilute the linguistic markers of their "Australianness" discourages social variation in language, and this detracts from the richly diversified notion of multiculturalism that typifies contemporary Australian culture.

Had the document advised people of a non-Australian background to tailor aspects of their language which reflect their own unique culture and identity to conform to the paradigm of their Australian work, it would be perceived as an act of racism or intolerance to migrants.

Non-standard varieties of English have proved to be some of the most powerful markers of in-group belonging and facilitators of covert prestige. Examples include:

• Kevin Rudd's penchant for informal Australian idioms like "fair shake of the sauce bottle" which function to lessen the notion of social distance between he as an authoritative figure and the people. In doing this he aims to be perceived as "one of us"
• The viral internet sensation of LOLcats whereby one's belonging to the LOLcat community is based on the ability to manipulate standard English into non-standard English according to the paradigmn of LOLcat-English by means of regularisation, incorrect spelling, elision and cat-related lexus 
• In last year’s election campaign the term “sand-bagging” was used to describe the practice of doling out cash to marginal seats – this ad-hoc compound is a distinctly Australian adaptation of the Americanism “pork-barrelling”. Similarly, John Howard adapted the American term for “water-cooler” topics – that is, the dominant policy issues of the day which captivated mainstream swinging voters – to “barbecue stoppers”.
• The enshrinement of slang that has been integrated into the mainstream vernacular by Government policy and Pronouncements like the state-governments use of the colloquial lexeme "hoon" to dub their legislation against such reckless and dangerous drivers "anti-hoon laws" and  Anna Bligh's  warning to Queenslanders to watch out for "shonks" as the rebuilding of the shattered State began
• The Macquarie Dictionary's inclusion of  terms such as “fart sack” for sleeping bag, “barbie” for barbecue and nouns such as spunk, bludger and dill 

Whilst it is fair to expect individuals to be cautious of the use of potentially offensive language in any given context, asking us to surrender our linguistic Australianness is to demean the value of social variation and its ability to facilitate the establishment of identity and in-group belonging. Especially given that communicating strictly in Standard English (which is associated with overt prestige) can connote an air of pretentiousness and authority. 

Reclaiming "Slut"

The word "slut" has long been a derogatory term wielded against women to demean them on account of their sexual activity. Since the coinage of the word, its connotations have broadened to encapsulate not just a promiscuous woman, but one who's appearance, conduct, mannerisms or behaviour are perceived to be suggestive in any way by someone (usually a man). 

The very concept of a "slut", and the fact there is no male equivalent for it directs attention to the hypocrisy and double standards one could only come to expect in a victim-blaming, slut shaming, rape culture and patriarchy. 

Given the sexism underlying the word, recent efforts have been made by feminists to "reclaim" it. Generally speaking, "reclaiming" a word involves the community to whom a derogatory or demeaning word is used against start using it themselves to signal in-group belonging and as a marker of identity to that particular group. The desired effect is that a term like "slut" is rendered unoffensive when utilised between group members (though it is likely to be offensive to those outside of the group). The success of the reclaiming of "slut" has been exemplified in events such as the "slutwalk" - where men and women alike take to the streets to protest sexism and slut shaming in their society.

In a similar sense, the word "fag" and "fag-hag" (a gay slang phrase referring to a woman who associates a lot with homosexual men) have been reclaimed by the gay community to signal homosexual pride and a desire to thwart stigmatisation based on sexuality. 

Another example involves the African community taking back the "nigger" - a word of immense offense that is redolent of a long and disgusting culture of racism. This is perhaps exemplified most obviously in the rap / hip hop / rnb music scene where it is used amongst people of an African ethnicity as a term of endearment which marks the belonging to a particular group.

Even "cunt", which is perceived by many to be the most offensive word in the English language, is in the process of being reclaimed. This movement has been instigated mainly by feminists who are most offended by the fact that a word denoting their genitalia and enforces female body shaming is the most extreme example of profanity in our language.

Of course these examples are not absolute. There still exist many people in the gay community, the African community, the feminist community and as women who would find terms mentioned in this post highly offensive irrespective of the context and would not be proud to refer to themselves as a "cunt" or "slut".

We-ing to the Top; politics is more than just policy

It is no secret that the employment of collective pronouns in discourse i.e "we", "our" "us" connotes a comparatively greater sense of inclusiveness and belonging between the speaker/writer and the listener/reader than its singular counterparts "me", "my" "I".
Recently, a Queensland university released the fascinating findings of an exhaustive study which analysed the extent to which these seemingly insignificant particles of language can potentially wield enormous influence in a political context.

The researchers of the university painstakingly analysed every drop of public political rhetoric produced by the various politicians who have run for Prime Ministership in our nation's 41 federal elections since 1901.
They found that 33 out of the 41 candidates who were successful in becoming Prime Minister of Australia employed on average a significantly greater amount of collective pronouns in their political speeches to the Australian people.

It is hardly coincidence that Australia's most successful politician to date, Robert Menzies, (who won 8 out of 9 federal elections) was the most eager frequenter of "we", "our" and "us"
Findings from the study contend that leaders who feel confident that they can speak on behalf of their party and also for general public will use collective pronouns whilst those who's political reputation hangs precariously in the balance (think of Kevin Rudd circa 2011 before he was replaced by Julia Gillard) will speak on their own behalf, using "me", "my" "I".

Interestingly, the use of singular, exclusive pronouns is not always aligned with a subconcious disregard for collective goals in favour of personal ones. A speech writer for Steve Bracks (former Premier for Victoria) claimed that his penchant for using predominately personal language in his public discourse was born from an intrinsic sense of personal responsibility tied to the problems Victoria was facing at that time. His language was not aimed at alienating the community, its desired affect was to reassure the people through inferring his active, personal involvement in the issues at hand.

In Summary; this study has shown that the Australian people are more likely to elect a politician who's rhetoric is laden with inclusive language as pronouns such as "we" "our" and "us" functions to

• Lessen social distance between an authoritative figure and the community 
• Insinuate a united front working towards collective objectives
• Cater to the positive face needs of individuals / our desire to feel appreciate, included and as though we belong
• Refutes a notion of social hierarchy - infers a degree of egalitarianism 
• Align a community / forge a collective identity / social group based on common values

Linguistic Analysis of Julia Gillard's Misogyny Speech

Accent
-Ms Gillard has a General accents which verges on Broad
Features of her accent include :
-Non rounding of vowel sounds
-Integration of syllables
-"Commahnd" vs. "Command"
-Discourse particles "ah" integrating sounds
-"erself" vs. "herself"
-
Para linguistic Features
-Eye contact; strength, fearlessness and certainty / demands attention and attentiveness from audience
-Pointing at Mr Abbott; physical representation of her accusations

Notions of Face
-Ms Gillard caters neither for Mr Abbot's positive face (need to be accepted, appreciated, liked) nor his negative face (need to not be imposed upon or inconvenienced) by repeatedly accusing him of actions which suggest a sexist attitude towards women.
Ultimately her speech is revolves around the contention that he is the face of misogyny in Australian politics and therefore, based on based on his previous objections to sexism in parliament, should hand in his resignation

Formality
-Context (House of Reps) necessitates use of non-intimate and official names for individuals
Eg: Deputy Speaker & Leader of the Opposition as opposed to "Tony"
-Ms. Gillard employs figurative language which relies on the audience's ability to infer what she is saying based on the connotations of the phrases (eg: should look in the mirror) to avoid sounding overly offensive
-Use of hyper-formal and context specific phrasing and jargon relating to the specialist field of politics
-"Bitch". Vulgarity / colloquial nature juxtaposes with formality of speech to command attention

Taboo ; a reflection of society

Evidence of language change in correspondence to a shift in societal values and beliefs is prominent in what ideas are considered to be taboo by a particular society in time. Taboo involves profanity, expletives, gestures and other social behaviours that are interpreted as inappropriate or rude in a particular context. Use of taboo is generally associated with a relatively informal register and often functions to generate covert prestige amongst some social groups. One of the first examples of profanity in media and popular culture was “Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn” in 1939 in the film “Gone with the wind”. This comparatively tempered use of profanity contrasts starkly with the language employed in contemporary media discourse where profanity and expletives such as the f-word and even the c-word are common. The broadening and growing acceptance of the “taboo” concept of profanity in the English language and in the public domain as exemplified by an increased use of such terms and this reflects a shift in societal values and beliefs.

A secondary type of shift regarding taboo involves certain ideas that were previously considered shocking and deeply offensive making way for other ideas in response to a changing society. The western world is increasingly embracing secularism and this is reflected in our language choices. The television program “Deadwood” encapsulates this notion of a shift in taboo in reflection of a variance in societal values. It is the deeply religious era of the late 1800s, where blaspheming and being sacrilegious were considered to be the most shocking and insulting linguistic choice an individual could make. However, rather than depicting the crude and offensive nature of the characters through having them taking the Lord's name in vain as a type of profanity, they employ current day expletives such as the f-word and c-word. This decision acknowledges a shift in the predominance of Christianity and consequently the magnitude of offence that can be generated by blaspheming. In a contemporary context, religious-based profanity is considered to many people as comparatively tempered as opposed to the crudely and sexual-based expletives utilised today.

Waltzing Matilda - our unofficial anthem

The famous song by Banjo Patterson is often regarded as the “unofficial anthem” of our nation. This notion is likely  due to the fact that it is positively loaded with Australian imagery (“billabong” “billie” “coolahbah”), and lexus (“jumbuck”, “tucker-bag” and “swaggie”). Whilst it would be a rarity to come across an individual today who employs lexus such as “jumbuck”, “tucker-bag” and “swaggie” in their vernacular, such vocabulary is part of an archaic hyper-Australian idiolect which is associated with a poignant sense of patriotism. A contemporary example is the ubiquitous usage of “g-day” and “mate” as indicators of Australianness.

Most notably, Waltzing Matilda is widely thought to encapsulate concepts that many regard as inherent to an Australian identity such as irreverence, a laid back attitude, a disregard for establishment and the rigid norms of propriety and a mockery and lack of respect for authority. Its lack of popularity in the Australian National Anthem Quest of 1973 could easily be attributed to such themes which evidently many perceive to be defamatory to Australians in the eyes of other nations. 

Forging an Australian National Identity

As a nation colonised by the British and part of the Commonwealth, loyalty to the Monarchy has long been considered an integral element to the Australian identity. However since colonisation there has existed a desire within the Australian community to diverge from the influence of our “Mother Country” and forge an individualised Australian identity based on Australian values. This notion of shifting from British ideals has gained momentum in society and has been exemplified in a myriad of key events that have taken place in recent Australian history.

In 1963 the Holt government announced that their current Australian currency which had been inherited by Britain was going to be replaced in favour of decimal coinage. This decision reflected the attitude of Australians at that time who were keen to implement steps which would legitimise the notion of constructing an independent Australian identity through divergence from Monarchical influence. The people of Australia offered over 1000 suggestions for the name of the new currency. Whilst some such as the “austral” and the “emu” were more neutral, many such as the “deci-mate”, “the boomer”, “the roo”, the kanga, and the “dinkum” shared a common ground in reflecting quintessential Australian values like good humour, larrikin-ism and a joking attitude.

Unfortunately for contenders like the “deci-mate”, the government at the time of the currency shift was Liberal and lead by PM Harold Holt. The liberal party are generally typified by right-wing conservatism and a comparatively greater sense of loyalty to the Monarchy, thus they favoured a name which denoted and reinforced Australia's ties to the colony. After Holt's “close and careful examination” “the royal” was announced to an expectant nation and subsequently met with collective disapproval and scorn. Whilst a relatively neural term, “dollar” was eventually decided on, Australia's reaction to the blatantly Monarchist “royal” name is evidence of the nation's almost unanimous yearning to distinguish ourselves from the colony and create a distinctly Australian identity typified by our own national values.

Soon after the currency shift came the implementation of metrication in Australia which was initiated in 1970 and was completed by 1988. Along with our original currency, the imperial measuring system was another inheritance from our mother country. Although contrastingly to the “dollar” vs. “royal” debacle, this shift was necessitated by both the aim of further forging a distinctly national identity and practicality which was also met with acceptance from the general public. Despite the inherent advantages of the metric system which involve substantially increased efficiency in teaching mathematics and science, a large proportion of the UK reject the system as they perceive it as submission to the European Union.

In the midst of the metrication came another integral decision implemented by the Whitlam government in 1973. They decided that Australia needed a new national anthem that would signify us as a separate and distinct entity from the colony and celebrate our uniqueness. A nation wide survey was held to determine a replacement for “God Save the Queen”, a song which celebrates Australia as a nation of subservience to the colony and connotes the subjugation of ours people under the empire. “Advanced Australia Fair” was selected and became the national anthem, except on occasions of exceptionally regal significance. “Advanced Australia Fair” purports our country as a young, independent, generous, prosperous, democratic and secular nation who doesn't pander to the Monarchy. The song correlates to the social movement which was gaining momentum in the 70's which saw for the first time an embracing of Australian cultures and attempts to eradicate the notion of a cultural cringe.

However in 1976 the Fraser government highlighted their alignment with the monarchy by reinstating “God Save the Queen” as the default anthem. Since 1945, Australia has seen the permanent migration of more than seven million people and our nation is becoming more and more culturally diverse by the day. It is for this reason that one could argue that an anthem such as “God Save the Queen” which signifies our British origin was irrelevant to a substantial proportion of Australian society in the 1970's because it does not reflect our status as a multicultural country. To compensate for the uproar of protest from the Australian people a plebiscite was conducted (as an optional additional question in the 1977 referendum) to chose the Nation Song which would be used when it was desired to markedly distinguish a separate Australian Identity. “Advance Australia Fair” received 43.29%, Waltzing Matilda received 28.28%, Song of Australia received 9.65% and God Save the Queen received 18.78%. Thus “Advance Australia Fair” was once again reinstated on April 1984 under the conduction of PM Bob Hawke.

The initial decision to shift from “God Save the Queen” and the unanimous outcry when it was reinstated in 1976 signifies the extent to which the dynamics and values of Australian society have shifted. The concept that the majority of Australian people no longer identify with the British ideals and values conveyed in their anthem reflects the necessity for us to pioneer a national image that symbolises what typifies Australian culture and our way of life.