Dr Robert Winston

Dr Robert Winston

After watching Winston’s short video on children’s language acquisition, I found out some interesting information:

-        Children use a different part of the brain, in comparison with an adult, when acquiring new lexis and language. This makes it much easier for a young child to develop a second language, rather than an adult.

-        The human Larynx is much higher in a young child, therefore it is much harder to pronounce certain sounds. In addition this makes them a lot more viable to choking. However, the Larynx naturally drops but 3 cm around the age of 1.

-        A 15 month old baby has to co-ordinate 3o different muscles in order to make certain sounds.

-        Once a child has reached the toddler stage, they are likely to be learning an average of 10 new words every day.

-        Alongside language, children have to learn and be taught self-awareness. Once learnt, they can demonstrate this through the use of 1^st personal pronouns. However, one drawback of self-awareness is ‘terrible-twos’. This is when the children realises its needs and knows how to have them met. An example would be throwing a tantrum in order to get a specific toy.

Evie assessment

Discuss Evie’s phonological and lexical development.

A two year, two month old baby (Evie – E) is sat in a garden with her Grandma (G) and Great Grandma (GG), pointing out the planes in the sky. The transcript lasts 57 seconds and the development of the child’s language acquisition is very apparent, including the child’s word-stage and demonstrates the lexis/phonemes she struggles to pronounce.

Firstly, Evie is seemingly in the telegraphic stage of David Crystal’s stage theory. This ‘stage theory’ is the theory that children develop their speech going through different stages. The telegraphic stage is when a child’s utterances are almost fully constructed of content words; greatly lacking function words, such as ‘a’ and ‘is’. This demonstrates that Evie is developing at the ‘natural’ rate of language development. Examples of this are seen, as she utters “aeroplane again” and “there plane”.

The very first utterance of the transcript, “look” is a verb and an imperative. It would seem that Evie is at the one-word stage at this point, however, we can assume that she is simply over-excited at the sight of a plane that she simply does not think about constructing full sentences. In addition, it is most likely she is using para-linguistic features at this point – using gestures to convey what she means. The use of gestures demonstrates a child’s understanding and will often be used because simple gestures, like pointing are much easier to do and comprehend than actual speech.

After repeating her first utterance, Evie’s Great Grandmother proceeds to identify the planes, saying “the aeroplanes” which Evie actually says simultaneously. We can assume that GG’s mention of the plane refreshed Evie’s memory, therefore she specifies what she wanted her grandparents to look at in her first utterance. Evie struggles to pronounce her phase “aeroplane again”. The word ‘aeroplane’ consists of a constant cluster that proves to be too difficult for her to sound out sufficiently, therefore she deletes the sounds of the ‘r’, ‘o’ and ‘a’, in order to be able to pronounce the word to the extent that she is understandable. In addition, this is an example of syllable deletion as Evie pronounces ‘aeroplane’ as just two syllables, as appose to three. When verbalising the word ‘again’, Evie demonstrates for a second time, syllable deletion as she removes the ‘a’ and only utters ‘gen’. Quite obviously words with less syllables will be easier to pronounce, but it this case, one might think that a simple ‘a’ would not be of the most difficult tasks; even for young Evie. However this is most likely an example of perceptual discriminability – with words such as ‘again’ it is much easier for a child to hear the stronger sounding ‘gen’ over the initial ‘a’. As a result the child (Evie in this case) will not even realise that there is an ‘a’ at the beginning of the word, therefore not pronouncing it.

Moving away from her pronunciation, Evie shows that she has already reached the point of her language acquisition, as she is labelling the sky and aeroplanes correctly. Labelling is one of the three stages stated by famous linguist, Aitchison in 1987. He suggested that a child will go through three stages (labelling, packaging and network building), when developing their language.

In her fifth utterance, Evie says “in the sky”. She is unable to articulate the word ‘sky’ accurately and uses substitution to replace the initial fricative, ‘s’, with a completely different sounding ‘g’. This is because the articulatory ease of the ‘s’ is very low in comparison to the ‘g’ – therefore it is much easier for Evie to vocalise. This change of sound could also be due assimilation, as the ‘g’ sound flows a lot smoother with the rest of the word, making it less difficult to pronounce.

Later on in the transcript Evie utters “there plane, plane”. In this phrase Evie does not pronounce the lateral ‘l’ sound in the word ‘plane’. This is due to the fact it is naturally harder to pronounce lateral sounds, therefore Evie does not pronounce them at all. In addition, this is a prime example of reduplication. There is not necessarily a linguistic interpretation for this specific reduplication and can be implied that it is simply due to her excitement.

Broken Homes Article

Broken homes ‘damage brains of infant children’ - Article response

The main point argued in this article is the fact that children whom are brought up in broken, dysfunctional families, mentally develop at a slower rate, ending up with a disadvantage among all the other children, when they reach the school age of 4.
I strongly agree with this argument. This is because I believe it is solely up to the parent for the development of their child, from the ages of 0-3. A child of such a young age will be in the company of their parents, every minute of every day. As a result, they will learn and develop by watching and communicating with their parents – greatly learning from minor things like bed time stories, for example. Therefore, in a ‘broken’ home, it is likely that the parent will not have the time or simply the care to do this, so the child is unable to develop as quickly as a child whom is receiving a lot more attention.

Opinion Article - Ongar Academy

The Ongar Academy teaching students not to say ‘like’ and ‘geezer’

In what is thought to be the first of its kind in the county, teachers at The Ongar Academy have devised a project to ensure pupils speak correctly. It began this term with the aim to stamp out use of the phrase "ain't". Next, staff will target pupils' incorrect and excessive over use of the words "like" and "literally". Future targets could be the reference to "geezer" instead of man and "bird" when referring to a female. David Grant, head teacher of the school in Fyfield Road, Ongar, has devised the new policy with assistant head Rebecca Hingston as they fear that left uncorrected, pupils' speech may cost them job opportunities.

Mr Grant said: "We have noticed since we started the school that students use a certain idiolect, which is particular to this area and in the future may not favourably reflect on them when they attend college and job interviews. We want our pupils to be able to sit in front of future employers confident they are giving a good impression by the way they speak, backing up the qualifications they have worked hard to achieve. "Also, children tend to write as they speak so incorrect use of words in their speech are reflected in their written English. If we, as staff, all encourage them to speak well, they will instinctively become better at written English, which will have a knock-on effect on all their school subjects."

All 100 Year 7 pupils at the school are taking part in the project, which is expected to run indefinitely. The aim is to focus on a certain phrase each fortnight and this is highlighted by posters around the school.

Crackdown

Teachers of all subjects have been urged to crackdown on pupils using these phrases. Mrs Hingston said although it was early days, pupils had already started to react positively to the initiative. She said: "Out in the playground we have heard pupils correcting each other when they use the phrase 'ain't' and parents have mentioned that their children have been commenting on their incorrect usage of words too. I really believe the pupils want to be able to speak well. "They are just not aware that the usage of some of their words is wrong but having it pointed out to them politely, but firmly, they are keen to lose the bad habits." Mr Grant says speaking the Queen's English is essential for pupils to succeed in what is increasingly becoming a global job market. He said: "Our pupils will be competing with other Europeans for jobs. They will be up against non-native English speakers, who because of the way they have been taught 'proper English' may be better spoken than them. "In this year of the Queen's 90th birthday and commemoration of 400 years since Shakespeare's death and I think we have a responsibility to ensure the way the pupils talk gives a positive impression." The school has just gained planning permission for the building of its permanent buildings on Fyfield Road.

My Response:

The recently published article “The Ongar Academy teaching students not to say ‘like’ and ‘geezer’”, explores a unique case, where a group of teachers are aiming to change the way their students speak, insisting that their current ‘bad habits’ will negatively impact their chances of gaining future employment; arguing that employers will not employ them, if they speak ‘improper’ English.

I strongly disagree with the teachers arguing this case and I believe it is only in the nature of being a teenager to use such slang terms. In your teen age years, you are enabled to speak in slang and non-standard English because that is part of being a teenager. A teenager should not need to worry about how they would be perceived in a job interview and should simply be free to speak how they wish, with reason. Slang is often used to fit into certain social groups, so, without it, a child may find themselves unable to socialise, leading to isolation and, effectively, making their life a lot worse off.

The way a person communicates is very personal; it is part of their personality, it helps them create a specific image for themselves, allows them to express themselves and allows them to be proud of where they come from. Without different styles of English, no one would have personality.

Slang and ‘improper’ English is seen in every generation of teenagers, so why is it only now that action is being taken? Previous generations (whom also spoke with slang) have proved that it is very easy and very simple to remove themselves from speaking in a certain mode, to enable that they are taken seriously as an adult. Having said this, I believe, like those of the past, teenagers today, will mature with age and eventually stop using slang.

Furthermore, I consider the factor, that most, if not all, teenagers are intelligent enough to recognise an inappropriate situation to use slang and will adjust the way they speak dependent on the listener and the circumstances.

Moving on, it is a widely accepted view that the way a person speaks does not directly correlate with their intelligence or ability, therefore, if these factors were to hinder a person’s chance of gaining employment then I believe it is the job interviewers whom are in the wrong, they should be less prejudice and judgemental against the way a person speaks. Also, if a person adjusts themselves to speak inversely, in order to create a different image, then it could be very likely that the employer is not employing the kind of person they think they are. As a result, it is the employer whom suffers.

Although I have positioned myself opposing this article, in some cases Students will be discriminated in job interviews because of the way they speak. So, to prepare them for such situations, I believe it would be very wise to have designated days, to specifically target the student’s abilities to adapt when being interview. For instance, another local school, Shenfield High School, has a yearly event, for its year 10s, labelled ‘Interview Day’, which does exactly that.

Language and Gender Essay

Language and Gender

Is the English language sexist? Yes. I believe sexism is frequently seen throughout the use of the English language. This theory is constantly being argued and I have explored the views, thoughts and theories of many famous linguists.  I believe sexism is very real in the English language, however, I also believe that, even though the gender inequality demonstrated in our language is still seen in today’s world, it has relaxed greatly over the past century. It can be argued that this is primarily due to the factor of women standing up and fighting for equality; through feminist groups like the suffragettes.

I most certainly do not believe the sexist nature of the modern English language, is the fault of those living in society today, although many still tend to be strong believers that this is only right. Throughout the course of history it has been very clear and understood that males (white in particular), have always been the leaders or are always the key figures in famous historical events. To back up this point, there has only ever been one female prime minister in the UK and that was only of very recently. The point I am making is that males would have created and governed the use of languages, so for this reason, I believe the English language is inherently sexist. Thousands of years ago, when language was first introduced, society was extremely patriarchal, leaving women with little, to no equality with men. Hence, when language was introduced, it greatly discriminated women.

Even the ways that men and women speak the English language outline the stereotypical gender roles and enhance its sexist nature. The well-known linguist, Sarah Mills, evaluated this in her research of language and gender in 1995, she commented that “men are socialised into competitive styles of discourse, whilst women are socialised with a more cooperative style of speech.” Although very generalised, this belief is widely accepted and can be easily noticed. In addition, it is a very commonly shared view that there has always been stereotypical expectations of the appropriate mode of speech for each gender. This idea, labelled by Deborah Cameron as ‘The Theory of Verbal Hygiene,’ demonstrates that no matter what, each gender will be expected to speak in a specific mode. Often, if a member of a certain gender group drifted away from these expectations, then it is likely for them to be judged or circled out for speaking in a slightly different manner, or be labelled with negative connotations. For example, a women who tells or even asks her partner to do something will be labelled as a ‘nag’ or ‘bossy’, as women are expected to simply obey and do what they are told. A man whom does not assert his authority over his partner will be considered a ‘pushover’, as men are expected to be the one with complete control. This clearly demonstrates a sexist view upon the use of language.

Moving on, the actual lexical terms within the English language itself make the idea of sexism in language abundantly more transparent. As explored by the linguist, Muriel Schultz, there is clear derogation in our language, as it is frequently found that there are far more words of negative connotations for describing women over men. I conducted some research of my own to find out how many lexical terms I could find to describe a sexually promiscuous female and then male. My results presented that I had found 57 words to describe women and 8 to describe men. Quite obviously, it can be seen that there were far greater words to describe women, this is known as ‘Semantic Over-representation’ - a fairly simple idea that just means there are many more words to describe a particular concept or group, than their equivalent. In addition to this theory, it is often noticed that there are numerous words that have the same meaning for men and women, yet completely opposite connotations, or it is regularly found that there is no equal to describe the other gender, which can be referred to as a ‘lexical gap’. For instance, the lexis ‘stud’ is used to describe a sexually active male and its connotations suggest that this male is someone to look up to, living the ideal life for any man. However, there are zero female specific terms that are equal to ‘stud’, the closest being ‘slut’ which has greatly negative connotations.

It can be very reasonably argued that even terms of endearment are sexist. Geordies use "pet" and "hinny" but you’re more likely to hear "babe" or “honey” in Essex.  Ian Brookes, Consultant Editor at Collins Language, says, "People use these words as a reflex without thinking of the item to which the word originally refers." So when someone says "pet" they are not referring to you as a small animal nor does "babe" mean you are a child, as the speaker is not looking to cause offence as they are merely just not thinking of the word’s original meaning. To make matters worse, I believe terms of endearment are often taken as offence as they are often expressed in a patronising tone. As most terms of endearments are aimed towards women or used by older generations, it would seem as though they are trying to assert power, therefore the recipient may feel intimidated.

As a form of rebellion, recently women have begun to take back offensive lexical terms to degrade women. This is known as ‘Semantic Reclamation’ and it is when a word that originally carried negative connotations has been 'flipped on its head' and is now used in a positive way. For example, although not used by all, some women have adopted 'bitch' to refer to their own friends, creating positive connotations.

Moreover, generic Terms and pronouns often provoke sexism. There is sometimes a generic use of a term or pronoun to describe a group as a collective, even when there is a variety of people. For example, as a generation we are referred to as 'mankind' or people refer to a mixed gender group/audience as he or him. A man named Simon Heffer stated in his research, ‘Strictly English’, – “I adopt the old rule ‘the masculine will be taken to include feminine wherever necessary.” Although he is attempting to convey his feelings are to not discriminate women, he is doing exactly that, no women would be comfortable responding to male-orientated pronouns. He mentions that it is for the sake of the English language but he comes across as though trying to recapture a more patriarchal society.

Finally, although possibly surprising to some, sexism can be seen in a form of more modern language, while very much adored by the average teenage girl, even ‘emojis’ are now being considered sexist. As seen in an advert by ‘Always’, girls are beginning to realise that there are very few emojis to represent girls, unless, of course, it is demonstrating something ‘girly’. For example, there are girl emojis for dancing, but any emoji concerning other ‘manly’ sports are portrayed by a male character. Essentially, even brand new forms of language are still following the same sexist pattern, demonstrating that each gender can only follow their stereotypical expectations.

Language and representation notes

Lexical Asymmetry - An imbalance in the meanings of two evidently matching words. For example, man and woman should have opposite meanings but should be equal. However, if you look up the words 'manly' and 'womanly' in the dictionary they actually have very different meanings.

Semantic Derogation - The negative meanings associated with words. For example, 'spastic','faggot','gypo'. Muriel Schulz in her'the Semantic Derogation of Women': "terms of endearment (for women)... often become acquainted with a degraded, shameful profession."

Semantic Reclamation - This is when a word that originally carried negative connotations has been 'flipped on it's head' and is now used in a positive way. For example, 'nigger' and 'bitch'.

Pejoration and Amelioration - When a word's meaning changes overtime. Pejoration - Semantics move from positive to negative, for example, 'gay'. Amelioration - Semantics move from negative to positive. For example, 'cute'.

Semantic Over-representation - A fairly simple idea that just means there are many more words to describe a particular concept or group, than their equivalent. For example, there are a lot more words to describe sexually active females than males.

Lexical Gaps - When there are no equivalents for certain terms. For example, 'cupcake' or 'stud'.

Marked and unmarked terms
Marked - 'Lady Doctor', 'Male Nurse'
Unmarked - 'Stallion'

Generic Terms and Pronouns - The generic use of terms or pronouns used to describe a group as a collective, even when there is a variety of people. For example, as a generation we are referred to as 'mankind'.

Patronizing and Demeaning Usages - 'Alright Darling' 'Cheer up, love'

Dictionary Research

Dictionary Research

Spinster:

The word ‘spinster’ originates from the 13^th century when it was used to literally describe a women who spun yarn. However, in the early 1600s it was denoted as a term for an unmarried women. In today’s day and age, a ‘spinster’ is rarely heard of but is most commonly known as a woman of age, who should be but is not yet married. In this sense, the word spinster has negative connotations, as when the word’s meaning was adapted in the 17^th century, women were expected to be married at a very young age, so being old and unmarried was thrown upon. This is very likely to be because society in 17^th century was very pro-religion and marriage was seen as a very significant part of a religious lifestyle. As a result this meaning has carried on through time and to be called a ‘spinster’ is likely to offend a woman. This word seems to follow a long-existing pattern of undesirable connotations of aimed at women who do not live the ‘correct’ lifestyle that is expected of them.

Other associations or meanings for ‘spinster’:

A woman (or, rarely, a man) who spins, especially one who practises spinning as a regular occupation.

A spider, or other insect that spins.

Bachelor:

The word ‘bachelor’ first crossed into the English language around the 14^th century when the word was used to describe low-ranking knights. Later on, during the Victorian period is when the word’s meaning evolved to mean an unmarried man. The connotations associated with the word bachelor are majority positive, as a ‘bachelor’ is most commonly known as a ‘free’ man, living the desired life of most men.

Other associations or meanings for ‘bachelor’:

It is often used to label the lowest level of university degrees.

Mistress:

The word ‘mistress’ originated from centuries ago and its original meaning was to signify the authority of a particular women, demonstrating that she has more power than an ordinary women. As time went on it was becoming much more common for the word ‘mistress’ to be used as reference to a woman whom was having regular sex with a married man. However, although that meaning is still well known in today’s society, I believe it is more common for ‘mistress’ to still be associated with a women of power, for example, a headmistress.

Master:

The word ‘master’ is a very old term. Originally it was only associated with men and its meaning has always been a label of a person who obtains power. Over time its associations have been altered and in more recent times, the word ‘master’ is often used to also refer to women. However, in the 21^st century this word will always give the impression that a person is referring to a male rather than a female.

Language Research, Secondary

Sarah Mills

She believed it is widely accepted that man and women do talk differently; men are socialised into a competitive style of discourse, whilst women are socialised with a more cooperative style of speech. Sarah Mills underwent an investigation of lexical pairs and how they are socially unequal to one another. In addition, she did extended study into the correlation between females and their stereotypically polite manner, in comparison to males and their stereotypical sense of impoliteness. She also measured whether the stereotypical politeness used was inherited. Fundamentally she focused greatly on the way in which certain genders speak and the inherited stereotypes in speech among genders.

Deborah Cameron

‘The Theory of Verbal Hygiene’

Deborah Cameron believes that no matter what, men and women face specific, stereotypical expectations about the appropriate mode of speech for their gender. The way that women conduct themselves has proved to be very significant in many cultures; women have been instructed in a ‘proper’ way to talk just as they have been instructed in a ‘proper’ way to dress. This acceptance of a “proper” speech style, Deborah Cameron describes (in her 1995 book of the same name) as “verbal hygiene”.

Deborah Cameron most certainly does not condemn verbal hygiene, as misguided. She finds specific examples of verbal hygiene in the regulation of '"style" by editors, the teaching of English grammar in schools, politically correct language and the advice to women on how they can speak more effectively. In each case Deborah Cameron claims that verbal hygiene is a way to make sense of language, and that it also represents a symbolic attempt to impose order on the social world.

Muriel Schultz

Derogation

Schulz argues that there are a significant amount of slang words used to describe women, obtaining negative connotations. She goes on to argue that the reason for this is because men fear women's attitudes and that these slang insults aimed at women, said by men are the only outlet men have. Schulz argues that words that were once used in a nice and gentlemanly way have changed and have become rude and slanderous towards women, this is derogation in action. The main issue Schulz addresses is that the language we use today will be carried on through to the next generation. In addition, if society continues to use these slang words in order to insult women then a new generation will start to use them and it creates a vicious cycle that will continue unless a generation decides to stop using this part of language.

 

Dominance theory

This is the theory that in mixed-sex conversations men are more likely to interrupt than women. It uses a fairly old study of a small sample of conversations, recorded by Don Zimmerman and Candace West at the Santa Barbara campus of the University of California in 1975. The subjects of the recording were white, middle class and under 35. Zimmerman and West produce in evidence 31 segments of conversation. They report that in 11 conversations between men and women, men used 46 interruptions, but women only two. As Geoffrey Beattie, of Sheffield University, points out (writing in New Scientist magazine in 1982): "The problem with this is that you might simply have one very voluble man in the study which has a disproportionate effect on the total." From their small (possibly unrepresentative) sample Zimmerman and West conclude that, since men interrupt more often, then they are dominating or attempting to do so.

Summary Of My Questionnaire Research

Information collected from my Questionnaire

I conducted a small research task to find out how the features of a person had an effect on their attitudes towards other people’s use of language. I handed out ten questionnaires to a random selection of people to acquire this information and this is a representation of my findings.

From my research I found that a lot of the feedback was very similar and a majority of the time, everyone shared the same views. These questionnaires were handed out to a number of people from each gender group. Even though there was a differentiation between genders, it did not have any effect on their answers.  I also found that the occupation of each person did not particularly differ their answers from anyone else. All of these questionnaires were handed out to people living in the south-east of England, so there is not much regional difference among the feedback. However, I found that the biggest factor that produce a different variety of answers was the age of the person or simply their own personal views.

I established that older people (particularly 40+) tend to stereotype and associated certain language and physical features with certain kinds of people. For example, they would not expect a businessman to have a strong Geordie accent and they would expect a young black teenager to speak with a strong London accent and to speak with a lot of London slang.

I found that people living in a certain area would not be surprised or react differently to someone who has a slightly different accent to their owner, however, if they came across someone from more adrift, it is likely that they would get picked on/treated differently. The responses from the questionnaires showed that if someone moved to Brentwood, from London or Sussex, they were not discriminated at all. However, one response showed a person who moved from Scotland into Brentwood and they were originally picked on for speaking a bit differently from what the local people were used to.

I set up a question that put the person in a hypothetical situation, where they were an interviewer for a job and I asked whether a person’s accent would affect the person’s chance of getting the job. 

Overall, a majority of the responses said their accent would have no effect on their decision, but 30% of the responses said it depended on how strong the accent was and whether they used any inappropriate slang.

In addition, I composed a question that queried whether the person thought that their own accent was strong. As expected, a majority of the responses claimed that they did not believe they had a strong accent. However, 20% of the answers said they did and stated that ‘anybody would be able to tell that I am from Essex.’

Language Research

Attitudes towards Language Research

Language and Gender:

Men interrupt women more than vice versa.

Women are more communicative.

Men do not give verbal recognition of the contributions in the conversation made by women.

Men curse more than women.

Women gossip more than men.

Women talk more with one another than men do.

Men speak more comfortably in public than women.

-        These are examples of the use of language that differ between genders, they are stereotypes and will never apply to every person, but these statements will often be found to be true. I believe, as time has got on, there has been less differences and more equality in the use of language between gender and I believe this is to do with the forever developing views of society; most notably the increasing equality between men and women, as well as the deteriorating expectations of your lifestyle, depending on your gender. This difference in language use will also be down to the stereotypical lifestyle of each gender;

-        Boys (boys will be boys):

-        Will grow up with other boys, playing sports.

-        Tend to play in large groups that are hierarchically structured

-        Their group has a leader

-        Status is negotiated via orders, or telling jokes/stories

-        Games have winners and losers

-        Boast about skills, size, ability

-        Girls:

-        More likely to grow up with girls, playing with dolls or shopping.

-        Tend to play in small groups or in pairs

-        The centre of a girl’s social life is a best friend

-        Within the group, intimacy is the key

-        Differentiation is measured not by status, but by relative closeness

-        Many of their activities do not have winners and losers (e.g. in hopscotch or jump rope, everyone gets a turn).

-        Girls are not expected to boast (in fact they are encouraged to be humble), or give orders (they would be bossy)

History - Language was a particular feature and target of Women’s feminist movements in the ‘60s and ‘70s.

Robin Morgan (1977, Going Too Far) - “The very semantics of the language reflects [women’s] condition. We do not even have our own names, but bear that of the father until we exchange it for that of a husband.”

There is a shared view that language is sexist, which can be very much justified:

He is a ‘master’. She is a ‘mistress’.

Language and Power:

Define social groups and power:

Political - Power in the Law e.g. Police, Judge, Barrister

Personal - Occupation / Power within a Job e.g. Doctor, Teacher and so on.

Social Group - Friends and Family, Class in society. 

Types of Power:-

Instrumental (Written and Spoken)

Influential (Written and Spoken)

In spoken language, power can be affiliated in many different ways:

- Power behind discourse - Context. (Who, What, Where, When, Why etc.)

- Power in discourse - Features and methods used to show power, for e.g. Material Verbs.

- Ideology - Meaning/Attitudes and world views displayed in language. e.g Terrorist over Freedom Fighters.

- Modal Verb (Auxiliary Verb)

- Epistemic and Deontic Modality.

- Epistemic - Suggests possibilities that are most likely to be true. e.g "You could do that."

- Deontic - Displays certainty e.g "You must do that.”

Some consider language to be split between public and personal power.

-Public power is the ability to shape public opinion, and thus to change or maintain the social reality. Public power is controlled by institutions, but also by more vaguely defined ideological collectives.

-Personal power is the ability to change or maintain one’s local social reality.

Personal power stems from social roles, social relationships, and personal language competence.

The connotations of power are often evil or the thought of someone overpowering another person or an image of someone being forced to do something they do not wish to do. However, I believe power is used even in the subtlest of ways and power is used every day by everyone, through their language. Even in small, insignificant incidences people will use power to get what they want, ‘You’re coming with me, yes?’ – pushing the listener to a specific answer.

A father, for example, would not forcibly have to resort to force in order to impose his authority over his son. Consider the following example taken from a short story entitled A Meeting in the Dark;

‘Sit down. Where are you going?’

‘For a walk, Father,’ he answered evasively.

‘To the village?’

‘Well-yes-no. I mean, nowhere in particular.’

We can clearly see in this short conversation that the father is exerting his authority on his son. The father here does not resort to force while talking to his son. On the contrary, the father resorts to a straightforward, strict style of address with his son.

Language and Race

Racism and stereotypes do not stop at appearance and it is often found that we use other features to racially categorize people, for example, the way a person speaks.

The colour of a person’s skin will often push a person to assume the kind of language a person will use and where their accent is from. For example, a black person in England will most probably be stereotyped to have a London accent, speaking with a lot of slang, speaking ‘improper’ English. A white person from England is stereotyped to speak with very little slang, speaking standard English and would be most likely associated with the south of England.