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