The wonders of code-switching

For years I've been getting funny looks when I answer the phone to my mum. Not because I'm saying something strange, but because the person listening can understand only half of the things I say due to unconsciously jumping between two different languages mid sentence. This is commonly known as code-switching. 

In linguistics, code-switching occurs when a speaker alternates between two or more languages. Multilingual speakers (those who are fluent in more than one language) sometimes use elements of multiple languages when in conversation with each other. Therefore code-switching is defined as the use of more than one linguistic variety in a manner consistent with the syntax and phonology of each variety.

There are many types of code switching used. Personally the most common that is used in my house is "Intra-sentential switching" which occurs within a sentence or a clause. For example in a switch between Spanish-English, one could say, "La onda is to fight y jambar." This represents how drastic the switch is and how it could happen any time.

There are many theorists studying the syntactic and morphological patterns of language alternation who conclude that there are certain grammatical rules and specific syntactic boundaries for where code-switching might occur. For more information on that research, search for 'Poplacks model' or 'Matrix language frame model'.

After a simple google search I was produced with 5 reasons why people code switch:

1) Our lizard brains take over

2) We want to fit in

3) We want something 

4) We want to say something in secret (common way of my trying to slyly slag someone off)

5) It's helps up convey a thought

I'd say a very common reason for me switching languages is to say a phrase that just sounds better in a certain language. For an example the French phrase- "Qui court deux lievres a la fois, n'en prend aucun"is sure to sound better in French when the direct translation to English is- "Who runs two hares at once, shall in no way". This shows clearly that the expression will just sound better in French. 

So if you hear someone flipping between languages, they're not doing it for banter, it's an unconscious multi-lingual way of communicating. 

Shaymaa Bani

How Child Language Acquisition is used in children's programmes.

Tyler Vallance

Children's television shows have changed greatly over a very short space of time, but the content within aimed at children hasn't. Child language acquisition or "Baby Talk" is usually any various speech patterns used by parents or caregivers when communicating with young children, usually involving simplified vocabulary, melodic pitch, repetitive questioning, and a slow or deliberate tempo. I looked at how infant and children's television programmes communicated with with children under the age of 6 on CBeebies which is a sub-channel of the BBC. The channel name itself has been changed to suit infants as there only used to be CBBC (Children's BBC) and now CBeebies is in place for infants, the /I:/ sound within the name makes it stand out to young children because of its slightly higher pitch which therefore attracts the child and gets their attention, the /I:/ sound is used a considerably larger amount of in CBeebies programmes then in CBBC's programmes. This is done to help teach young children by the /I:/ sound being more memorable as its different to most sounds used when forming words and sentences, but also to keep their attention throughout the entirety of the programme. I specifically looked at 'In The Night Garden' and how Baby Talk is used within. When looking for it within the programme it was impossible to miss, with the slow tempo throughout, the rhyming speeches at the beginning and end of the program, and the /I:/ sound placed in every neologism you can find, such as 'Upsie Daisy' and 'Ninki Nonk' I think this is done to keep children's attention but also to entertain them and understand that these made up words are funny and to keep the programme interesting. In The Night Garden is a programme taken place in a toys dream, the show is usually aired at around 6 o'clock each evening which I think is to show children that an imagination is good and going to sleep isn't a bad thing. This programme may also help to get children tired before going to bed because of its slow tempo throughout and the soothing sounds when the narrator gives his lines, there will rarely be a harsh sound when listening to the programme which shows how child language acquisition can be used in a variety of ways and to accomplish different things, such as making a child tired, helping them learn or just as something nice to listen too. I also looked at a show called "Everything's Rosie" which is about a group of animated characters encountering different problems and overcoming them. This is similar to In The Night Garden as this show also uses the /I:/ sound a lot, mainly in characters names, for example "Rosie", "Oakley" and "Holly" this again is to get children's attention, this also has a narrator but he is one of the characters within the programme, the narrator is male with a low melodic tone in his voice, I believe this is done so children can listen and enjoy what is being said as there are again almost no harsh noises within the show to put children off it. I have a few younger siblings so I have seen children's television programmes change over the years and the ways different sounds are used has changed too, narrators are used frequently in younger children's programmes to help them understand what's going on, but almost every word is emphasised in some way, and pronounced with clarity but are not spoken harshly or loudly in contrast to the background noises. Child language acquisition is used throughout children's programmes to help children understand what they are watching, to keep their attention but also to teach them whilst watching when using a specific tempo and melodic pitch in which some speech is delivered in and the /I:/ sound.

The Language of Music Magazines

 In this article, the focal point will be based around the language of rock music based magazines, looking mainly at generic articles about Frank Iero, All Time Low, Green Day and whatever other rock icons you can list, written for 'Kerrang!' and 'Rock Sound' magazines. Firstly, looking at the discourse structure in a bit more detail and in particular of the articles involving the cover story. Within Kerrang!, an article including a write-up of an interview with Frank Iero is nothing less of what you'd read each week, where the length is usually around two pages of A4 paper in very small print in total in order to fit around the large amount of imagery that you see in this magazine… Looking at Rock Sound from the same viewpoint, it was surprising to find that the cover-story article, a summary of an interview with All Time Low, covered around three and a half A4 pages in the same size print. This is very interesting, as up until now, I'd assumed that the magazines were pretty much the same. Now, I assume this difference in length of content is due to the fact that Kerrang! Magazine is released weekly and Rock Sound magazine is released into shops monthly.

 

 Moving on to the headlines used in these magazines, they contain an odd mixture of seriously raw emotional-based headlines, such as Rock Sound's "FRANK IERO REVEALED! THE SONGS THAT INSPIRED A MUSICAL REVOLUTION" and lighthearted headlines that sound a bit like something your dad would say, such as Kerrang!'s "PIERCE THE VEIL: AMERICA'S HOTTEST BAND FACE THEIR FANS!". These continue throughout the magazine as captions to images, along with the use of covert prestige such as "brodown" (Kerrang!) in order to appear 'down' with the kids that are likely to be reading… Which acts as a brilliant example of how Giles' Theory of Accommodation can be applied to these magazines, whereby the writers of the articles try to converge their way of speaking, or writing in this case, to mirror the way that their target audience of teenagers speak. For example, using fillers in their writing such as "sure" and "boy" in order to break up longer sentences to keep it snappy and interesting.

 

 Finally, the use of deixis, or language that is context-bound, is very common within the two magazines, using the similar fan-based interviews as an example. Kerrang! carried out a fan-interview with Pierce The Veil in this issue, using the simple phrase "find out just what Mike thinks of Avril Lavigne…" will only be moderately understood in two circumstances: where the reader knows who Mike (Fuentes) is or where the reader was involved in this fan interview (which, luckily for me, I was!). The same sort of thing is found in Rock Sound's fan-interview with Tonight Alive, where they've used slang like "STREWTH!" to introduce the article, which of course is only understood if you're aware of British-Australian slang.

 

 Katie Plenderleith

All quotes are from Kerrang! Magazine issue 1566 and Rock Sound Magazine issue 199.

Language used in football chants

There are many different chants, sung by the thousands of fans of English football on game day. These chants vary from “We’ve got Di Canio” to “Are you city in disguise?” But I want to explore them more. I want to know who uses them and why?

The first trail I chose to explore was the use of taboo language. Cuss words/phrases often appear in football chants such as “*insert name here* you’re a cunt, *insert name here* *insert name here* you’re a cunt!” The use of taboo language is often used in an attempt to abuse or intimidate an opposing player or group of fans. Similar use of taboo could also be used to abuse an official if a decision went in what would be deemed to be the wrong favour.

Linking to the use of taboo language in football chants, sexual connotations frequently appear. A popular chant amongst fans of Chelsea F.C. is ‘Celery’. A line of this chant is sang “if she don’t cum I’ll tickle her bum with a lump of celery”. Using sexual connotations within chants could support the humour theory of psychic release. Psychic release theory is all to do with terminology and situations seeming funny, as they are often considered rude and inappropriate. Psychic release theory often occurs throughout football songs as there is a sense of diminished responsibility as fans are chanting in large groups.

There is good evidence of many different discourse structures within football chants and songs. Some take a discourse of adjacency pairs. This could be if one fan were to shout a question, and the rest of the fans were to answer. An example of this would be from a very popular arsenal chant which leads “What do we think of Tottenham?” by a single fan, and the rest of the stand would be expected to reply “SHIT!” This adjacency pair would be question-answer. Fans would use chants as an opportunity for everyone to get involved. Also, as the original question would be replied to with a powerful minor sentence, the group of fans would seem intimidating yet again to the opposing fans and players.

One major reason as to why football chants and songs are sang so frequently and powerfully would be to become the hypothetical “twelfth man” This would probably be the most significant reasoning for why they are sang as it is all about supporting the side they support. Many teams have songs which are specifically sang by just their fans. It becomes the song of the club. These kinds of songs are sang during every game by the thousands of avid, loyal fans. Some examples of these kinds of songs in the English Premier League would be ‘You’ll never walk alone”- Liverpool F.C. and “I’m forever blowing bubbles”- West Ham United F.C.

There are many factors which contribute to the language used in football chants, there is no definitive reason as to why they are sang. They have just become a significant part of the beautiful game.

 

Adam Bartlett

The Oxford Comma

For several years, there has been a massive debate on the usage of the Oxford, or serial comma.

The Oxford comma is placed before the conjunction of a list, often to rid ambiguity. An example of where a sentence can become ambiguous is the following, 'can you invite Max, a singer and a dancer'. Without the Oxford comma, it is not apparent whether you are being asked to invite only Max, who is a singer and a dancer. Or whether you are being asked to invite Max, a singer, and a dancer. 

The British usually criticise the Americans for invading and manipulating the English Language, but is the Oxford comma the best thing that the Americans have done yet? The Oxford comma is seen as pretentious by the British, but is it really?

There are several style guides which oppose the use of the Oxford comma, such as The Times and The Associated Press. However, many American style guides suggest that the serial comma should be used in all writing. 

There are only two British institutions that recommend the use of the Oxford comma. The first is The Oxford Style Manual and the second is the MHRA Style Guide (Modern Humanities Research Association).

In Britain, the influences of the American culture and language are drifting over and becoming part of our everyday language, so should we adapt to the Americanisms or should we stick with our own style?

Walt Hickney, an owner of a blog found that 57% of people are in favour of the Oxford comma, whilst 43% would rather not have it, showing that people do prefer the use of the Oxford comma.

Roy Peter Clark at the Poynter Institute followed up Hickney's research, and asked people whether they thought that journalists should adopt the Oxford comma, and the Associated Press should include this in their stylebook. To his surprise a whopping 71% of people said that they thought they should make the change. 

The main argument against it is that it looks 'ungrammatical' and 'incorrect,' however surely if readers of texts prefer it and it makes it easier to read, then shouldn't we adopt it?

Through my research, I've found that more people are in support of the Oxford comma than against the use of it, so surely we should be using it, not only does it help people to follow a list, but it also helps to prevent ambiguity which is often common within newspapers. 

Sources: http://www.arrantpedantry.com/2014/09/08/is-the-oxford-comma-ungrammatical/

http://ed.ted.com/lessons/grammar-s-great-divide-the-oxford-comma-ted-ed

Ben Da Silva

''How To Talk To A Person With Disabilities Without Sounding Like An A-Hole''

From the Fact-sheet on Persons with Disabilities made by United Nations we can find out that around 15% of the ​world's population, or estimated 1 billion people, live with disabilities. In addition, this figure is still increasing through population growth, medical advances and the ageing process, says the World Health Organization.​

At the moment they are the world's largest minority. In that case it's truthful to declaim that minimally every one of us had met one person with any disability. I can accordingly assume that every one of us had the uncomfortable situation while interacting with one of them and trying to figure out how to do it properly.

WHY IT HAPPENS?

''One reason is that some people feel sorry for people with disabilities, and assume that they are bitter about their disabilities. This is untrue in many cases. Lots of people with disabilities feel that their lives are enriched by their experiences with disability, and even if given the chance to erase their disability would choose not to.

Another reason that some people are uncomfortable around people with disabilities is that they're afraid that they will "say the wrong thing". However, that's not a big deal to most people with disabilities. What's important is that you respect the person and see them beyond their disability.''

In the movie "I am Sam", the main character, Sam, is an adult with a developmental disability. An initially insensitive attorney says to Sam:

I need that list of names from you—people who can testify that you're a good father despite your handicap. 

I didn't mean your handicap, I meant your disability. [shakes her head] The fact that you're retarded. 

That's not the right word. [exasperated] I don't know what to call you!

To which he replies:

Sam. You can call me Sam. 

 

As you have seen above, people with disabilities have the same name as other have - HUMAN.

Of course there are various impacts which build our quandary, so…

HOW TO DEAL WITH IT?

Of course we can try to solve the problem on our own, but sometimes it's much easier to get appropriate information from the people and right organizations, e.g. charities.

In the day of the internet everything is at hand, so there is nothing between a CLICK and useful guidelines for us. Many of them are even suitable for specific kind of health issue.

General etiquette tips include not only word help. The point of our body language is described as well. As we know from everyday life the ability of interpersonal communication has high significance and it's not as easy as ABC, especially in a unique cases as disabilities are, which should not seem so unique at this times.

If you believe that you might need some kind of easily accessible advices, here are some pages for you to browse:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/15/disability-etiquette_n_3600181.html

http://www.robohand.net/some-dos-and-donts-when-interacting-with-people-with-disabilities/

http://www.dol.gov/odep/pubs/fact/comucate.htm

https://www.dhs.state.il.us/page.aspx?item=32276

 

Say goodbye to your efforts and follow the rules given by them and you will find interacting with people with disabilities less complicated than without them. 

Don't forget to consider that there is always some issue in people's characters, gender, interests etc., which could make our talk much harder and there is no briefing sheet containing instructions about every one of us.

EVERYBODY NEEDS TO BE DIFFERENT 

author – Nicole Hartun

 

Bibliography:

http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?id=18
http://uiaccess.com/accessucd/interact.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/15/disability-etiquette_n_3600181.html
http://www.robohand.net/some-dos-and-donts-when-interacting-with-people-with-disabilities/
http://www.dol.gov/odep/pubs/fact/comucate.htm
https://www.dhs.state.il.us/page.aspx?item=32276

Those Bloody Politicians!

Many high profile people and politicians try to be as unique as possible, so that they stand out from the rest. There are many ways one can identify this, especially their linguistic features and how they assert themselves using them. As well as that they use specialist lexis in their field. But for the most part they don’t want to completely alienate themselves from the rest of us, so they try to conform to the public, so that the public don’t think too highly of them and see them as people they can’t connect with.

A great example could be politicians like David Cameron. When speaking he wants to come across as someone powerful yet someone who is connected to the public. The register he uses when speaking is very formal, and his grammar is standard. A great example is from his speech when he won the 2010 General Election where he states “I think we need to sort this out”. Despite the sentence being short, it has an imperative which shows that he wants to take control. But at the same time he tries to conform to us by saying ‘we’ which is an interrogative. In terms of his formality he comes across as well-spoken individual.

Another feature he uses frequently in his speech is the heavy use of ‘I’. This is an indication of the power that he intends to show across by suggesting he can do these things. But as the speech goes on he starts to use ‘we’. By doing this he tries to make the listener feel included. Addressing the reader is a great persuasive method. Other persuasive methods include the list of three. An example is “the strong, the stable and the good”. The Prime Minister may use persuasive methods to try and convince people that his ideas are the best, therefore building a strong leadership. Another important method is the use of specialist lexis. David Cameron mentions terms like ‘government’ and ‘coalition’. These like many examples show that he knows what he is on about, and it proves to people that he takes his field seriously.

At the end of the day politicians will always try to come across as powerful people, which could be the reason why the general public don’t conform to them. But the best politicians are the ones that can speak well and get people listening and approving them. According to Wareing there are three types of power. Political, Personal and Social. Political power is used by politicians, personal power is held by people in their occupation and social power comes from Age, Gender, Race etc.

In conclusion to the overall idea that politicians don’t connect with people, you should first think of the language they use. Politicians like Cameron will use all of these features, making him seem like he is above us and that he holds a large amount of power, but at the same time he sacrifices that connection. Whilst stronger politicians like Blair and Thatcher will set out to connect with people first, ultimately making them more popular. 

Robin Beales

How to spot a Psychopath

Psychopaths have highly persuasive nonverbal behavior that diverts the listener away from being able to identify the psychopathic nature laying behind. However their manipulation only works to a certain extent as their speech can perhaps indicate psychopathy. Psychopaths can easily conceal the truth through being cunning and manipulative however unconsciously their speech patterns can tell a different story. It makes it hard for people such as criminologists, to establish who is and who isn't a psychopath, as they typically use superficial charm and are pathological liars.  

For example when police interview psychopaths who have committed crimes, there is a tendency for them to describe their crimes in past tense rather than in present. This could suggest that they have a psychological detachment from their crimes showing, in most cases, their lack of empathy and emotion, key characteristics of psychopathy. Perhaps using past tense could also suggest their lack of empathy to their crimes as they don't acknowledge the situation in the present time, as they don't have regret of the crimes they have committed. 

Jeffrey Hancock, a communications professor, analyzed the language of 14 psychopathic murderers and 38 killers, who were not diagnosed with psychopathy. He found that emotional abnormalities can manifest in their speech patterns. He found many psychopaths used casual phrases such as the conjunctions "so", "because" and "since", especially in terms of describing crimes they had committed. He suggested that they used these casual phrases as the crimes were a "logical outcome of a plan". Therefore the crimes were a goal they had to achieve. 

The key to concealing psychopathy is trying to convince the listener that you are sane. Therefore psychopaths use a variety of language features to do so. Firstly they use non-fluency features such as hesitations and fillers such as "uh" and "um" to put on a mask of sanity. By the speech not flowing properly, it suggests that they are sane and cannot remember crimes in detail, whereas in reality they can remember everything they have done clearly. Also they use paralinguistic features such as gestures and facial expressions to make it look like they are sane as they are expressing some form of emotion. Whereas if they didn't make gestures or facial expressions it would suggest that they have a lack of emotion.  

Another thing I have noticed, in terms of criminals who have been diagnosed with psychopathy, is that their language is used as power. More so they use instrumental power, which is shown in many police interviews as they become the dominant participant in the conversations. This means to gain the power and control, they lead the conversation, set the agenda and control the topics that are discussed. This can be illustrated using Fairclough's theory that interactions are 'unequal encounters' and that language choice is created and constrained by certain social 'power' situations, as psychopaths can create power imbalances. 

Kayleigh Morgan

 

Gender stereotyping in football journalism and commentary

Over the past several decades, gender equality has risen to the front of commonly overlooked problems needing to be addressed. Casual discrimination towards women in media has caused outrage in recent years, particularly in the field of sport.
Women’s football is a sport which has risen in popularity in recent years, most recently due to the 2015 Women’s World Cup in Vancouver. The competition brought with it high media attention, in particular from England and the United States and for 3 weeks, had the attention of the world. This event was handled well in the media and the coverage was widely approved of, however in previous tournaments, there has been clear cases of casual gender discrimination.
In the 2011 finals in Germany, where there was far less media coverage and attention drawn to the tournament, the players consistently had their appearance commented on, such as hairstyles and complexion. When compared to the men’s game it is not unusual to have a players physical appearance noted, but parts of their appearance irrelevant to the game they were playing (such as hair and complexion) are rarely mentioned, if at all.
The media generally classify the Women’s world cup to be less important as the men’s event and therefore give it significantly less coverage. Whilst, in fairness, the recent world cup was widely covered and celebrated, it still had virtually no acknowledgment when compared to the men’s world cup in Brazil the year before. Weeks of build-up, large-scale advertisements seen both on television and around towns and cities and huge celebrity endorsement.
In print journalism, small comments that used to go un-noticed are turning heads due to their underlying implications that men are more capable in sport than women. In an article discussing the success of Jessica Ennis, she was referred to as ‘Recent mother Jessica’. In sports reports for men, their personal and private lives are only mentioned if they’re controversial and even then, the entire article tends to be focused around it, as opposed to it being briefly mentioned.
One case that caused wide-spread outrage and controversy took place after the England women’s team were eliminated from the 2015 Women’s World Cup at the semifinal stage after losing to Japan in heartbreaking fashion. Upon returning home after the tournament’s end, the official England twitter posted a tweet that read:
‘Our #Lionesses go back to being mothers, partners and daughters today, but they have taken on another title – heroes.’
With this message being broadcast to over 1 million followers, the internet reacted furiously and the offensive tweet was deleted within the hour. Several widely-respected figures in the twitter world accused the F.A of sexism and the writer of the tweet was forced to apologize publicly.
This shows that even in the developed time that we live in, there are still clear examples of gender discrimination in the media. The real question is, will sexism still be widely present in 4 years’ time at the next world cup?

Sources: http://news.yahoo.com/english-fa-apology-tweet-womens-world-cup-team-185254017.html

James Daniels

Gendered language within sport – Still an issue in today's game

Global sporting events such as the Olympics, Wimbledon and the World Cup are loved by most yet there is still a recurring issue within sport – that being the gendered language and stereotyping.

Gender egalitarianism has come a long way especially within sport, yet global events help reinforce the idea of diversity between men and women. A great example is the current 'Women's World Cup' which has shone controversy of its own. Firstly, is named 'Women's World Cup' contrasting from the Male event just being 'World Cup'.  

Another worldwide event, the 2012 Olympics, saw mass controversy over commentator's language. One example being in an interview with volleyball gold medallist Kerry Walsh, interviewer Bob Costas referred on more than occasion of the finalists as 'girls' despite both being in their 30's. The use of the term 'girl' was covered especially frequently in interviews regarding swimming and basketball events, which implies immaturity, when have you ever heard a commentator refer a male athlete as a boy? Probably never.  Another case during the Olympics, was when commentators gave background information on athletes, when describing males they would focus on the training or athleticism of them, however for the females more about their personalities and appearance.  A useful example showcasing this was an article from the 'Washington Post', which expressed the idea that swimmer Missy Franklin accomplished a lot despite her 'bubbles and dimples'. 

Other coverage featured highlighting women's nail polish and hairstyle choices whilst commentating, which very rarely occurred in Mens coverage. At one point during a team final, a commentator made note of the sweat shown from the female athletes suggesting women are showing 'less grace', completely stereotypical. Women were also deemed 'emotional' in the Olympics coverage when crying, which contrasted from the commentators views that Men crying was deemed 'enthusiastic' and 'passionate'.

The Olympics was a prime source example of how gendered language was generally portrayed in sport, with coverage focusing more on appearance and personality of females rather than relevant, sporting achievements. This could link with the idea that a general semantic field of sport is usually associated with Men, and that the gradual increase of Women's participation within sport can be seen as unaccustomed – for example Women should not have muscles or be athletic, which leads to gender bias and reinforces stereotypical feminine roles.

 The 'Amateur Athletic Foundation of Los Angeles' carried out a study on the gendered stereotyping within sports coverage. Their summary of findings included: As already picked up on, Women athletes were frequently referred to as 'girls' or 'young ladies'. In tennis commentary, Women were called by only their first name 52% of the time, whilst Men only 7%.  Commentators' use of metaphorical language during sport coverage was much more frequent during Mens sport than Women's. Women athletes were also commonly addressed as humorous objects and even in some cases were sexualised, which reinforced the idea of Women being non-athletic. The language evidence from this study shows that there is still gender bias within sport coverage, and that Women's coverage is inferior to Mens.

 

Sources: http://genderreport.com/2012/08/12/girl-games-still-grappled-with-gendered-language-commentary/

 

http://www.la84.org/gender-stereotyping-in-televised-sports/

 

By Karl Fortmann

Is the English Language being killed by Text Messages?

How many times have you thought about what you were really trying to say when sending that text message? All of the time, and do you know why? That is because writing, but in this case texting, is deliberate. When you send a specific message you calculate what you’re meant to be saying, you’ll make sure that it is interpreted in a certain way. However, this is completely different with speaking. Speaking is largely subconscious and rapid.

Because of how easy it is to get something across to another person, texting has surged in the past few years, and has especially grown up younger people. A study which took place in 2014 showed that younger people are more increasingly prone to texting and shy away from taking and making phone calls. This can be seen as an issue because phone calls are way more direct than texting. However in the eyes of those who were tested, they argued that phone calls are less permanent than texting.

Everyone has developed their own kind of grammar for texting. For example take “OMG”, when you break it down OMG is actually an abbreviation for “oh my God”. This isn’t used literally anymore, and has progressed into a more enlightened abbreviation.  OMG is often used now to express emotion. For example someone could say “why did Jason do that to me? OMG” this clearly is expressing the writer’s emotion of what Jason had done.

Recently, there has been an alarming spike of claims from many primary and secondary education teachers who have claimed that they have concerns for children who cannot properly read or write or they have seen an increasing drop of literacy levels. Many of this is blamed because of the increase technology and how accustom these children are to these, most of the time relying on “spell check”.

However, a recent survey taken place in 2008 on abbreviations argues against this. This survey, which may seem outdated by now, actually showed that the older that a teenager becomes the more unlikely they are to use “lol”, but actually lead into a more mature “haha”. Therefore, this is a counter argument used by many linguistics that the usage of abbreviations in texting is not actually ruining the English Language, but it is actually innovating and enriching the language instead.

Furthermore, Tagliamonte found that in instant messages there is “an infinitesimally small use of short forms, abbreviations, and emotional language.” Therefore, this completely rules out the idea of the English Language being killed, or ruined by the use of shortened language.  His data accounted that 3% of all language found was stereotypical teen language.

http://blog.dictionary.com/shortening-english/

http://ideas.time.com/2013/04/25/is-texting-killing-the-english-language/

By Harry Hepworth

Are Americanisms ruining the English language?

Are Americanisms ruining the English language?

 

It’s clear to see that Americanisms have made a huge impact on the English language over the last few years, it’s made very apparent on popular social media sites such as Twitter, Facebook and Instagram. Although these sites have never been acclaimed for their literary skills in terms of grammar, spelling and punctuation I feel that this could be down to the rules of e-communication and ‘text speak’ as opposed to the use of American slang in English language which I feel is a much bigger problem.

I know that the media has a big influence on everything that goes on in my generation’s lives, and their language is clearly no exception. The excessive use of American English that we are shown on our screens every day is having detrimental effect on our historically profound language, teenagers and even older people now are getting so caught up in the ‘norms’ of today’s society that they are losing all essence of their identities as English people.

While scrolling down my twitter feed the other day, as I do several times in one day I began to notice how excessive the use of these Americanisms are, and all from people born and raised in England? Things such as ‘goddamn awful’ and ‘I feel like I’m going to vomit’ are always creeping onto my timeline, now although these Americanisms that have somehow gotten into the English language do grind my gears, they’re not as easily noticed because they’re heard on an everyday basis from things such as TV programmes, celebrities etc. you just forget that they are intruding on a great language and let them pass.

One thing however I have noticed that I cannot tolerate is the use of the proper noun ‘Mom’ as opposed to ‘Mum’ as it was intended to be in the English language. I know the two words mean the exact same thing but that’s the problem? Why change how the English have written the word for years just because of a TV show or whatever other media influence that has corrupted the English language.

According to Webster's New World Dictionary (1991) there are roughly 11,000 words in British English that can trace their heritage to the USA, showing that the invasion began quite a while ago. It’s hard to tell now which words do actually originate from English and differentiate them from those that do not, every day we must hear and read so many of these American English words and not even acknowledge it because it’s so common in today’s society.

Even the BBC have written an article on Americanisms in English language, prompting thousands of the general public to send in examples that they have noticed, several were seen time and time again: "Can I get a...", "gotten" and "A half hour" as well as many more, proving that it’s an issue noticed by many but also something that has gone unnoticed by the majority.

As much as it pains me to say it, there’s nothing anyone could do to prevent this from happening, the media is a much too powerful, influential force to overcome and without the use of many of these Americanisms the English language wouldn’t be what it is today, American English forms much more of our day to day language than we realise and whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing, Who knows?

 

Shannon Cavie.

“Swearing is emotional language”

When I asked my dad about his view on swearing, he said "I used the c-word when I was younger and I got into a lot of trouble". From this I decided to do some digging around for 2 reasons: 1) "the c-word" and 2) "when I was younger". Taboo language, or more commonly known as swearing, have been around since the Anglo-Saxons in the 5^th Century, but it seems as when time went on, swear words have become more offensive. "Fuck" has been abbreviated to the "f-word", and others go as far as "see you next Tuesday".

Richard Stephens, a senior psychology lecturer at Kew University did an experiment on this: how long can people hold their hand in ice cold water. One group were able to swear their heads off to see if it eased the pain whilst the other group used neutral words, this was carried out over a dozen times and the same result occurred: people who used swear words kept their hand in for longer. Another example is a personal story from Richard where he explained that when his wife's labour reached the 20 hour mark she started getting really bad contractions. When this came on she would scream and swear. From this it's obvious that swearing can be used as a way to decrease pain.

On the other hand it can also be used in a more positive way, for example in the Olympics they interviewed a windsurfer when she unexpectedly won a bronze and she responded with "I feel fucking amazing". So swearing is emotional language.

"The great pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do" is something I, and no doubt others, go by. 0.7% of the words a person uses in a day are swear words, which doesn't sound like a lot but we use them at the same rate as pronouns. So despite taboo language being seen as unacceptable, we still do it. It seems like the older generations more frequently abbreviate swear words as they were brought up that way, whereas this generation supposedly know at least one swear word before the age of 2.

So what is it about swearing that makes it so satisfying? The phonetics of the words could have something to do with it. One thing they have in common is that they emphasise fricatives: /f/ /s/ and /ʃ/. "Fuck", "shit", "piss" etc have these sounds, so I could potentially make up some words including these emphasised fricatives and turn it into something nasty. If I can create a word with no meaning but with fricatives, for example "shiseff", this could be just as satisfying because you can put feeling, emotion and passion into the emphasised letters.

Or maybe it could be down to meaning; regardless of the phonetics, the meaning of the word "fuck" is more powerful than the sound alone because it has a sexual connotation. Overall, swearing can act almost like a guilty pleasure, no matter what the place, time or scenario. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2625581/Swearing-emotional-creative-language-say-researchers-claim-GOOD-you.html

http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/04/10/nine-things-you-probably-didnt-know-about-swear-words/

Alex Bingham

Mistake commonly by English learners

Even though English has become the global language, there are still many mistakes people make when speaking it. I've researched the mistakes that Germans and Pakistanis commonly make when speaking English.

Q: What did the German clockmaker say to the clock that only went "tick tick tick"?
A: Vee haf vays to make you tock
Why is it that when people are telling a German joke or trying a German accent, they always pronounce /z/ instead of /th/ or /v/ instead of /w/? The German alphabet has the same 26 letters as the English alphabet and additionally it has the four umlauted letters: ä, ö, ü, and the ß. However, the German phonetic alphabet doesn't contain the /th/ sound, therefore, Germans say 'zis' instead of 'this'. Another mistake commonly made is the mispronunciation of Englsh words with the /w/ sound. The /w/ sound is often exchanged with a /v/ sound, eg 'vine' instead of 'wine. The /w/ sound is in German phonology but is used differently than in English. There are several words beginning with /w/ in German, such as 'Wald' (woods/forest) or 'Waschmaschine' (washing machine), however, these words are pronounced with a /v/ sound instead of the /w/ sound. German words that begin with /v/ are often pronounced with an /f/.
The link below is more detail on the exchange of sounds in different words. http://german.stackexchange.com/questions/1754/w-%E2%86%92-v-v-%E2%86%92-f-why-do-german-speakers-wrongly-transpose-rather-than-shift-when-sp

English has an extensive vocabulary, especially compared to the German language. In English, people tend to be more specific about nouns. For example, in English people might refer to a pillow as the pillow on the bed and refer to a cushion as the cushion on the sofa/armchair. However, German only has one word for both things. So they would refer to them both as 'das Kissen' (literal translation: pillow). Germans will often find it difficult to choose the right noun.

Germans will often make the mistake of using the wrong preposition. For example, Germans might say, "I work by the post office", instead of "I work at the post office". Germans use the English 'by' as a homophone to the word they would choose in German. Another example is "I make my homework every day".  Instead of saying I do my homework, they use the literal translation from German (Ich mache meine Hausaufgaben = I make my homework).
Another mistake similar to this is that, in English, the word visit is only used to visit people. It is wrong to use the verb to say 'I visit the museum' or 'I visit the cinema'. The Germans use 'besuchen' (to visit) for people and places, unlike the English, which is why they commonly make the mistake of saying "I visit the cinema".

People from Pakistan also make mistakes when speaking English. Even though one of the official languages of Pakistan is English, along with Urdu.
A mistake that is commonly heard is the misuse of pronouns. A Pakistani might accidently call someone a he or a she no matter of their gender. For example, when referring to a male cat, they might call it a she without realising their mistake. This is because in Urdu the same pronoun is used for he, she, it and they (woh).

"Yesterday I have to go to work"
This is another mistake that some Pakistanis will do. There are very few words in Urdu, which have two different meanings in English. For example, 'kal', can mean both yesterday and tomorrow. When used in Urdu, other Urdu speakers will know which 'kal' they mean because of the tense they use. However, when speaking English, they often choose the wrong one 'kal' translation while using the right tense.

A Akhtar

 

References:
http://german.stackexchange.com/questions/1754/w-%E2%86%92-v-v-%E2%86%92-f-why-do-german-speakers-wrongly-transpose-rather-than-shift-when-sp
http://londonschool.de/top-english-mistakes-made-german-learners-volume-1 http://www.urduword.com/lessons.php?lesson=pronouns_and_possession
Brinkmann, Hans   Practise Avoiding Mistakes, Part 2: Choice of Words (Diesterweg)