Results from Targets of Mock Exam

Targets from the mock exam:

• Go over Language Change theories.
• Revise Piaget and Lenneberg's theories.
• Go over key features to use in CLA essays other than theorists.

Language Change Theories/Theorists:
To fix my first target, I have researched two well known Language Change theories and theorists.

Erin McKean

• Erin McKean is a lexicographer who has performed a few TED Talks, a significant one being: 'The Joy of Lexicography'. She's described her job as 'directing traffic of words'.
•  She said that online dictionaries are pretty much replica's of physical dictionaries except it has a search engine. She went on to say that physical dictionaries soon won't be the 'physical shape' of the dictionary.
•  She also said that we are 'in the dark' about language and the amount of words that are actually used.

David Crystal

•  He believes in the theory that says people have the ability to use two dialects of the same language, with people about to adapt their language to meet the needs of different situations.
•  He also said that 'the popularity of abbreviating words as our liking of 'linguistic economy' space constraints and technological limits are motivations to help us i.e. texting acronyms and initialisms usually convey message without wasting characters.'

CLA:
Piaget's Theory-Stages of Cognitive Development:

•  Piaget stated that children won't learn concept that they don't understand  unless they are ready to learn it and understand it.
•  He came up with four stages of cognitive development: Sensori-motor, pre-operational, concrete operational and formal operational.

Lenneberg's Theory- Critical Period Hypothesis:

• Lenneberg said that there is a critical period where a child can learn rapidly.
• He stated that after this critical period language development becomes a lot harder.
•  An example to prove his theory would be the famous case of 'Genie: the feral child'.

Key Features to use in CLA essays:

• Hallidays Functions
• Over/under generalisation
• Over/under extension

Jonathan Swift Poem Analysis

The following poem is written by Jonathan Swift, it shows how he uses language in a non-standard way.


On Stella's Birth-Day 1719 by Jonathan Swift
Stella this Day is thirty four,
(We shan't dispute a Year or more)
However Stella, be not troubled,
Although thy Size and Years are doubled,
Since first I saw Thee at Sixteen
The brightest Virgin on the Green,
So little is thy Form declin'd
Made up so largely in thy Mind.
Oh, woud it please the Gods to split
Thy Beauty, Size, and Years, and Wit,
No Age could furnish out a Pair
Of Nymphs so graceful, Wise and fair
With half the Lustre of your Eyes,
With half your Wit, your Years and Size:
And then before it grew too late,
How should I beg of gentle Fate,
(That either Nymph might have her Swain,)
To split my Worship too in twain.


The poem shows language used in a different way to modern standard English. One example would be when he says: "Stella this Day is thirty four". I'm assuming that he's saying that it is Stella's thirty fourth birthday. The structure of the line causes a difficulty in figuring out what it is meant to say. It's quite an old-fashioned way of writing it and it even has the sense of a love letter with the use of the words "beauty" and "brightest". This isn't uncommon as back in the Swift's day, a lot of writing was about love. There are other lines that have structures that are uncommon in modern day:"Since first I saw Thee at Sixteen".

The noun 'birthday' that is in the title is split in to two with the two words being split by a hyphen. This shows that language is always changing mainly due to what is easier. What was before two words is now one word (a compound word), this makes it easier to both say and write. It is also capitalised which is interesting as back when Swift write the poem, birthday's weren't a big celebration like they are today. It is now more common to capitalise it now than back then.

It's also interesting that 'Day' has been capitalised in "Birth-Day". The reason for this could be to show the significance of the particular day. It could also be because there wasn't a particular/ standard way of writing the word(s). It isn't just the title that use odd capitalisation, it also used in the text eg: "Size and Years". I find it odd as there isn't a special significance to the two words. It almost seems like they are randomly put there as there are more than one capitalized word in every line.

Older texts and Standardisation

Dr. Johnson:
Dr Johnson's dictionary was published in the 18th century in 1755. He has been described as "a driver of standardising English"- he was specifically interested in spelling. At the time when Johnson published his dictionary, there was a large "explosion of popular print" like newspapers and magazines. Through this "explosion", Dr. Johnson "embalming English for all time, but he soon recognised that language has a plastic nature that can't be set in aspic."


Dr. Johnson's Dictionary wasn't the first dictionary to be created, there were many dictionaries that were created but none were more recognised as Johnson's. The dictionaries didn't have the same rules and the popular ones were those that were written by people who were respected for the literary world. In fact the first "word reference books" can be dated back to as early as the 8th century. Johnson provided etymologies for every word and a list of multiple meanings for the words. He also excluded obsolete terms and names.


He helped to "drive" the standardisation of English by doing many things. He helped pronunciation by showing how important stress was as a rule. He also cited words with similar vowel sounds. He quoted prestigious authors that were most popular to show the more standard way to write. The dictionary  then created a space for future works like the Oxford English Dictionary, which is one of the most used at the moment.




Robert Lowth:
Robert Lowth was an Oxford professor that published his book 'Short Introduction to English Grammar' in 1762, around the same time as Dr. Johnson published his dictionary. His book was really influential in school education and had 45 editions by 1800.


Lowth's book created the 'do's'  and 'don'ts's' of English Language. An example of one of the rules he created was using the word 'whom' correctly as the object form of 'who'.


Bibliography:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8255720.stm
https://prezi.com/imlh1dgypzho/samuel-johnsons-dictionary-and-its-contribution-to-the-standardisation-of-the-english-language/
http://www.1066andallthat.com/english_modern/standardising_03.asp
https://www.uni-due.de/SHE/HE_Standardisation.htm#grammars 

Language Change and Analysis

Reasons for Language Change:


When words begin to be used in different ways and acquire new meanings it is called neosemy, EG: 'Text' was originally a noun then became a verb as well. There are many different processes in language which are linked to neosemy like amelioration. This is the process where a word gains a more positive meaning like 'pretty' used to mean sly. Another process that is linked to neosemy is broadening, this is where a word keeps it's old meaning but adds a new one.
These processes are the ways in which language is changing. Through broadening, amelioration, narrowing and pejoration, words add, lose or change meanings which changes the language that we use everyday. But there are many reasons why language changes below.


One reason why language is changing is because of external factors like technology. Through the rise of technology and popularity of it, new words have been created and old words have broadened to be part of the lexical field of technology like the words "windows" and "virus". However not only is it external factors but also internal factors that affect it, like the base meaning of a word can be linked to something similar EG: an actual virus can be similar to a computer virus. Other reasons why could be because changing of social ideas where words aren't socially acceptable anymore EG: They instead of 'he' or 'she'.


Analysis of Hefer's article:
Throughout the article it is clear that the writer has a very prescriptive attitude which is what was expected when seeing that is from the Daily Mail. The newspaper is known to have an attitude that is about what's right and wrong, not having a more open opinion. It is shown when talking about the word "rubbish":
"These abominations have no place in serious writing."
The use of the word "abomination" is very odd to find in the text especially when talking about language change. The word brings along with it many negative connotations of horror and disgust. The word itself hasn't changed much over time as the original meaning from the Old French word "abominacion" which meant "the feeling of disgust, horror and loathing".
Something else that I found interesting is Heffer's use of the word 'he'. It seems to be his default word for third person, personal pronoun. A reason for this could be because of his prescriptive attitude as people with that attitude tend to say 'he' and don't understand why they should say anything else instead of it. The article was written in 2014, when 'they' would have been used instead of 'he' or 'she' when they don't know the gender of the person. Even though it might not have been fairly common, as a journalist he would have known that 'they' would have been the more favourable word. He does actually use 'they' at one point but then quickly reverts back to 'he'. It's interesting to consider the fact that he may have used it to be controversial. As a newspaper known for being controversial, the Daily Mail could have approved of his use of the default word just to get readers talking.


Following on from the newspaper's need to be controversial, the writer used the word 'joyously' to describe the whole article. The word brings positive connotations and makes you think that the article is going to be a light hearted article when really it's quite heavy with the use of "abomination" and "absurdity". They could have used even used it to be funny or sarcastic, it was again an odd use of the word.

English throughout time

Different periods of English:


The English language originated in around the 5th century from a variety of other languages including Angles, Anglo-Saxons and Jutes; before it became a language we spoke in Celtic. Due to historical events like the Viking raids until the 11th Century language has been caused to change. A large influence on our language has been Anglo-Saxon and Old Norse which is proven if you look at the etymology of most words; the origins will most likely be one of the two or from Latin, which is also highly influential.


In the 11th Century (Middle English), the Norman invasion was very important in the evolution of the English Language. The verbal language at the time was mostly French where as written documentation used Latin, mainly by the Church. Towards the end of this period English became prominent through writers like Chaucer who decided on writing in English than French (the most known verbal language). The differences between dialects became clearer at this point and separated the different parts of the English Language.


By the 15th Century many works were printed in English by the printing press from Europe by Caxton, this contributed to beginning of a standard form of English. It used the dialect form the South East as the basis of the new standard English. At this time there was an increasing pride in English as a language, as more writers write in the language like the Bible being printed into English and Shakespeare.


By the time of Modern English (18th Century), the language had increased it's usage including the borrowed words from Latin, Greek, French and other languages around the world. The structure of language and grammar was studied to reveal patterns in the way we use language which created what was right and what was wrong in language by people with prescriptive views. Now in present day English has developed through the influence of the media, travel and technology as world-wide language.




Samuel Johnson's Dictionary:
When looking at a page from Samuel Johnson's Dictionary it is very clear that language has changed dramatically since 1755. There are few words that I recognise from the extract and the words that I do recognise have changed since then. The meanings have changed as have the way we pronounce them. An interesting part of the extract is that next to each word it has a name of who had used the word in their works; like Shakespeare and Dryden, then there was an example of the word being used. We have examples in the Oxford English Dictionary and even references if the example is from writing but  we don't have an example from a text after every single word.


Inkhorn Controversy:
From the 16th-17th Century, as mentioned before,  there was an increase in pride of the language. New words were coined using borrowed words from languages like Italian, Spanish and Latin, and compounding.
In 'The Arte of Rhetorique' inkhorn terms were first used. The terms were considered pretentious and artificial but encouraged creativity. They were used by many writers like Shakespeare.

Article Analysis

In the article linked at the bottom, there are a range of examples of prescriptive attitudes throughout. I can apply Jean Aitchison's 'Damp Spoon' metaphor to the text as the metaphor is all about how society has became lazy with language and don't use as many words as we used to. The article stated that parents don't understand 'text speak' anymore as it has evolved to keep parent's 'in the dark' from their children's lives, both online and off.

 

A quote I found which showed the prescriptive attitude is, "unfathomable words". The "unfathomable words" that the writer is talking about are "bae" and "fleek" which are now very common words and young adult/ teenage speak. The writer seems to imply that these words are negative because of the group of people who use them. He appears to be stereotypical by calling the words unfathomable and then linking that to the users. Teenagers have the stereotype of the older generation not understanding them and so their language use isn't correct when really it's just non-standard. By using the word "unfathomable" he's saying that you can't understand the words and so they are wrong; it's unlikely that he would use that word is an adult said those words. If it was a descriptivist talking about the words then they would have just said that it's the evolution of language.

My next example which shows that the article has a prescriptive attitude is "these words are now effectively extinct". "Extinct" is a word that is commonly used in language by both people who have prescriptive attitudes and descriptive attitudes, that's not what the issue is. The issue with this quote is that the writer is stating the fact that the words "gr8" and "m8" are extinct. By stating this fact he's suggesting that using them now will be wrong as they "are extinct". Also, they aren't extinct, they are just not used as frequently as they are used today.

My last example is when he uses the phrase "caveman-form". The use of the words caveman has many negative connotations, it appears to be describing something as pre-historic and not correct. Saying that something is wrong is a prescriptive attitude as they have a set idea of what's right and what's wrong. This also links to when he says "today's youth" which has negative connotations.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3063455/English-language-changing-fast-words-majority-not-understand.html

Analysis of Sandi Toksvig article

Toksvig Article: Sandi Toksvig finds linguistic treasures in the 'Urban Dictionary'


Throughout the article it is clear that Sandi Toksvig has a very descriptive attitude and it is communicated well through the text. She cleverly manages to express her descriptive view through the text, so that it suits the GRAPE.


As a newspaper, especially the Telegraph, you may assume that the articles that are published will be serious and will have a very prescriptive attitude; Toksvig expressing a descriptive attitude seems like it shouldn't fit, due to the audience most likely being people with prescriptive attitudes, but it does. She uses informal phrases like "a funny old thing" which suits the genre and audience. Along with this the phrase isn't criticising language, and isn't saying if something is right or wrong. She's suggesting that language is a bit unpredictable and that that is good, it's just the way that it goes. She also does this when she writes about a complaint she received from a woman at a Q&A. The woman appeared to have a very prescriptive attitude to language compared to Sandi Toksvig. And when Toksvig doesn't criticize her, it shows her descriptive attitude.


Later on she states that language is always evolving and "has never been one person's preserve". She says that as it is always evolving, it will never stay the same and she sows this when talking about the Oakland School Board in 1996. It shows that there's increasingly more words being added to languages and dialects, and even in this case, new languages/ dialects.


Another way that she suits the GRAPE is by adding humour to the article. She talks about a joke website which changes language into a comical language, which definitely suits the purpose to entertain; along with keeping the audience interesting. She also adds humour by including all of the different languages for "Merry Christmas and Happy New Year", then she ended on a humorous end by wishing the audience "Merry Christmas" in Danish.


One point in her article that could be considered questionable is when she talks about the Urban Dictionary. It is a very modern idea and also very descriptive which could make the audience not want to read it. The Telegraph newspaper doesn't usually talk about things like the Urban Dictionary and so it is questionable as to whether it is suitable. Personally, I think it is okay as she is talking about a topic which links to the purpose of the article.