analysis of 1700 text

In the text, we can see the extended 's' that was used in the 1700's, looking more like an f without the line going through it. This shows how the symbol and letter has been developed through time, and could be a result of roman influence in the 1700's and then as more and more immigration occurred, more influences adapted the way we right now.

There is also a capital letter before random nouns and some verbs that wouldn't be used nowadays. There wouldn't be much reason for this apart from the fact that they hadn't distinguished the difference between proper nouns and concrete nouns, or they had different and more vague/lenient rules of how the English language and grammar worked in the 18th century.

Graphologically, the type face is italics. This would maybe be associated to female preference, and would be associated to the fact that in this era, it was only women that would do the cooking, whilst the men would be out working. Compare this to a modern day recipe or cook book, and we would maybe see a more casual, unisex font, that is also more colloquial too.

I agree with the text “Broken homes ‘damage brains of infant children’ to a certain extent. Different segments of language are formed by masculine influences, and others feminine influences. If a child are only living with the mother, for example, then it could affect the child in that way. Duncan Smith states ‘children from broken families simply bump along at the back and at the bottom’ which I can see to be true to some extent because if their friends at school talk about their perfectly functioning families and they can’t agree and share the same emotions, that could be quite disheartening. However just because a child is from a ‘broken home’ doesn’t always mean they will be affected. I know people from divorced parent families that have gone to UNI, got amazing A level and GCSE grades and are working in London in top paying jobs.

Is the english language inherently sexist

Is the English language inherently sexist?

 

I think that over the years the English language has definitely become more sexist. Many meanings for words have changed to be aimed at a specific gender, and they have adapted to a much more critical and sexist society.

Sex is the biological difference between men and women. Gender is the cultural expectations and understandings ascribed to sex (men and women); the differences in behaviour and roles that are a result of societal expectations. Gender is what a person can be discriminated against. This can be seen through many practices and theories. Let’s look at some every day vocabulary that have male and female connotations and reasons behind this. A cake is something that everyone eats, however we would associate the word with a female because cakes are sweet and fluffy and sugary, all of which are expectations of characteristics that a girl should have. On the contrary, a beer is something that an adult of any gender can enjoy, however it has connotations of burping and geezers and getting smashed, which is all hard core things that are associated with the male species. However, when the word cake is used for a male, it would be that he stereotypically “wolfed” it down, and vice versa a woman would stereotypically “sip” a beer.

There are many theories and ideas towards sexism in the English language. Julia Stanley is a sociolinguist who came up with the theory that there are 200 sexually promiscuous words aimed at woman and only 20 aimed at men. This suggests that women can be degraded more than men. It also suggests that if a woman has sex it is more outrageous and unacceptable that if a man has sex. For example, the word if a man has sex they get praise from their friends and get a ‘jack-the-lad’ reputation because a man is stereotypically meant to go out, drink loads, pull birds and have loads of sex ( Julia Stanley’s views). However, if a woman has sex, she will get name called and bad reputation because she is stereotypically expected to stay an innocent virgin until she is in a loving relationship.

Another theorist that looked into the sexism in the English language was Sarah Mills who wrote the third wave feminist linguistics. “This paper critically examines Third Wave feminist linguistics, a form of anti-essentialist analysis which challenges Second Wave feminist linguistics' analysis of the language of women and men as homogeneous groups.  Rather than assuming that men and women necessarily speak in different ways, men being direct and forceful, women being hesitant, polite and apologetic, a Third Wave feminist linguistics analyses the complex negotiations undertaken by  women and men with gendered domains (those sets of linguistic routines or contexts which appear to be gendered, for example  public speaking, intimate conversation), and  gendered stereotypes of what it is assumed that women and men should do (that is, women should be co-operative,  men should be competitive). In this way, Third Wave feminist analysis makes it possible to analyse the language use of women and men, without assuming that all women are powerless, all males are powerful, or that gender always makes a difference. Thus Third Wave Feminist linguistics examines, for example, the language of women who adopt primarily masculine forms of speaking in the public sphere. However, rather than just focusing on the individual, this form of analysis also examines the  role of context and social forces on the individual, in that these ways of speaking may be judged by others as incompetent, aggressive, unprofessional and unfeminine. Third Wave feminist linguistics is therefore concerned with moving the analysis of gender and language away from the individual alone towards an analysis of the individual in relation to social groups who judge their linguistic behaviour and also in relation to hypothesised gendered stereotypes. However, this article does not wholeheartedly advocate the adoption of a Third Wave feminist perspective. It seems that within this type of analysis sexism becomes difficult to analyse or challenge, and this I suggest that rather than seeing Second and Third Wave feminist linguistics as chronological, they need to be seen more as approaches which may be more or less appropriate depending on the context and social situation. In the case of sexism, for certain types of sediment sexism a Second Wave feminist approach is more applicable, whereas in others a more locally-oriented and context-specific Third Wave approach is preferable. Thus Second Wave feminism needs to be integrated into Third Wave feminist linguistics, so that both local and global issues can be addressed.”

Deborah Cameron says that wherever and whenever the matter has been investigated, men and women face normative expectations about the appropriate mode of speech for their gender. Women's verbal conduct is important in many cultures; women have been instructed in the proper ways of talking just as they have been instructed in the proper ways of dressing, in the use of cosmetics, and in other “feminine” kinds of behaviour. This acceptance of a “proper” speech style, Cameron describes (in her 1995 book of the same name) as “verbal hygiene”.  Cameron 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. For an interesting and provocative comment on Cameron's ideas, you might consider this from Kate Burridge, in Political correctness: euphemism with attitude.

Not everyone shares my view of PC language. Deborah Cameron (in Verbal Hygiene 1995) prefers not to describe it as euphemism, arguing there is more to political correctness than just “sensitivity”. A term like “sex worker” is not simply a positive expression for tabooed “prostitute”, but deliberately highlights certain aspects of this group's identity. PC language is itself a form of public action by drawing attention to form, it forces us to sit up and take notice. Euphemisms are certainly motivated by the desire not to be offensive, but they are more than just “linguistic fig leaves”. They can be deliberately provocative too. Think of political allegories like George Orwell's Animal Farm. One of the reasons why such texts are so successful is that they exploit euphemisms to publicly expound taboo topics, while at the same time pretending to disguise that purpose. Like any tease, such disguise may itself be titillating.

SPINSTER:  First recorded in 1362, meaning a woman (or, rarely, a man) who spins, esp. one who practises spinning as a regular occupation. The word comes from Anglo-Saxon & Old English Vocabulary. The word now has different denotations; a woman still unmarried; esp. one beyond the usual age for marriage, an old maid. The spelling hasn't changed, but the spelling and words used in the different time periods is different. It has negative connotations, as it suggests that there must be something wrong with the woman for her not to be married.


BACHELOR: First recorded in 1297 meaning a young knight, not old enough, or having too few vassals, to display his own banner, and who therefore followed the banner of another; a novice in arms. [On this sense was founded the conjectural etymology of bas chevalier.] We can see that the language and sentence structure is different, because of the fact that the word originated in old England. The meaning now is still the same, but we would phrase it differently. Here, it is simply put 'an unmarried man'. There isn't much detail as to why or how he is unmarried, which suggests that it is just a decision of his. It has positive connotations, as if he is a 'jack-the-lad'.

SARAH MILLS (the third wave feminist linguistics)

This paper critically examines Third Wave feminist linguistics, a form of anti-essentialist analysis which challenges Second Wave feminist linguistics' analysis of  the language of women and men as homogeneous groups.  Rather than assuming that men and women necessarily speak in different ways, men being direct and forceful, women being hesitant, polite and apologetic, a Third Wave feminist linguistics analyses the complex negotiations undertaken by  women and men with gendered domains (those sets of linguistic routines or contexts which appear to be gendered, for example  public speaking, intimate conversation), and  gendered stereotypes of what it is assumed that women and men should do (that is, women should be co-operative,  men should be competitive). In this way, Third Wave feminist analysis makes it possible to analyse the language use of women and men, without assuming that all women are powerless, all males are powerful, or that gender always makes a difference. Thus Third Wave Feminist linguistics examines, for example, the language of women who adopt primarily masculine forms of speaking in the public sphere. However, rather than just focusing on the individual, this form of analysis also examines the  role of context and social forces on the individual, in that these ways of speaking may be judged by others as incompetent, aggressive, unprofessional and unfeminine. Third Wave feminist linguistics is therefore concerned with moving the analysis of gender and language  away from the individual alone towards an analysis of the individual in relation to social groups who judge their linguistic behaviour and also in relation to hypothesised gendered stereotypes. However, this article does not wholeheartedly advocate the adoption of a Third Wave feminist perspective. It seems that within this type of analysis sexism becomes difficult to analyse or challenge, and this I suggest that  rather than seeing Second and Third Wave feminist linguistics as chronological, they need to be seen more as approaches which may be more or less appropriate depending on the context and social situation. In the case of sexism, for certain types of sediment sexism a Second Wave feminist approach is more applicable, whereas in others a more locally-oriented and context-specific Third Wave approach is preferable. Thus Second Wave feminism needs to be integrated into Third Wave feminist linguistics, so that both local and global issues can be addressed.

Research Task Accent and dialect - When we talk about accent, it is important to remember that this relates only to pronunciation and intonation rather than grammar or vocabulary. Thus, two people speaking the same language, who use the same grammar and word choices will give different cues about their social and regional origins, ethnic group membership or class. While we, as listeners, naturally pick up these cues about people’s ethnic, socioeconomic and geographical background, experimental research has shown that listeners can also make judgements on others’ intelligence, warmth and even height just by listening to recorded accented speech.

Attitudes to accent and dialect questionnaire

Attitudes to accent and dialect – Issie Smith

 

1. What is your age?
    
   16-21                 22-30               31-40               41+
    
2. What gender are you? (circle the one that applies to you)
             
    Male                                Female                                Other
    
3. What region and county of England are you from?
    
   ___________________________________________________________________________
    
4. What is your ethnicity?
    
   ___________________________________________________________________________
    
    
5. What are your views on an Estuary (Essex accent) compared to a Received Pronunciation (“posh”) accent?
    

 

 

 

 

1.  Would you agree that there is a ‘Proper’ way to talk, as in the Standard English and Received Pronunciation, or do you think any accent and dialect is acceptable? Please explain your opinion.

 

 

 

 

             

1. If you could choose one accent from the UK that everyone had to speak, what would it be and why?

              

 

1. Do you agree that someone who speaks with a “posh” English accent has an advantage over someone with a more common accent in a situation such as a job interview? Please explain your point of view.

 

             

 

 

 

1. Do you think it is acceptable to judge someone’s intelligence on their accent? Please explain your answer.
    
   
   
    

 

 

          

1. Do you think it is acceptable to judge someone’s intelligence on their regional dialect (their vocabulary for example)? Please explain your answer.
    
   
   
    

Analysis of questionnaire - Accent and Dialect

I recently carried out a questionnaire in order gather information about peoples views on Estuary accents, versus peoples views on received pronunciation. The questionnaire was given to a group of people, within in a 16-41+ age range. I decided to make it such a varying age range so I could compare the difference between the answers of this generation and another generation. From my results, there is quite a clear difference of opinion. I also asked a mixture of male and female candidates, to see if there was any variance in those answers. Here are the results I collected.


The first question I asked was "What are your views on an Estuary (Essex) Accent, compared to a Received Pronunciation (posh) accent?" I found out that people age 41+ actually dislike the Estuary accent, and agree with received pronunciation, where as the 16 year olds I asked didn't mind either, but gathered that it was better to speak received pronunciation. This told me that it is perhaps stereotypically though as better to speak 'posh' than 'common'. In comparison to this, there was no difference to the answers of a male and those of a female.


Later on, I asked the question "Do you agree that someone who speaks with a 'posh' English accent has an advantage over someone with a more common accent in a situation such as a job interview?" Six out of the eight people I asked agreed with the statement. 1 was 41+, and the rest were 16. Explanations of these answers included statements such as received pronunciation is better respected, it is seen as more formal, and people who speak with a common accent tend to have worse grammar dialect than people who speak posh. Two out of the eight disagreed with the statement. One answer stated "It depends on the environment of the interview. Interviewers may favour similar accents to their own".


The last two questions I asked were "Do you think it is acceptable to judge someone's intelligence on their accent?" and "Do you think it is acceptable to judge someone's intelligence on their regional dialect?" For those of you who don't know, regional dialect is the vocabulary and words and phrases you pick up form being in a certain place or region. For example, a commonly use work in Essex is 'peak', meaning unlucky, or bad. However, someone from Scotland wouldn't know what that means, because it isn't a word used in their region. The answers I got were what I expected to see. Everyone agreed that you cannot judge someone on their accent. Some of the reasons included were you cant help how you talk, someone could know everything, but if they live in a place that speaks with, for example, an Estuary accent, they would most likely pick that up, but that wouldn't effect their intelligence. Another example was that Sir Alan Sugar has an Estuary accent, yet he is one of the smartest and most successful entrepreneurs in the country. On the other hand, everyone agreed that you can judge someone on their regional dialect. Answers given said that if someone uses more creative and analytical words that are actually in the dictionary, rather than made up words, it is a sign of intelligence and good education. People in the UK that are in gangs and got kicked out of school and do drugs tend to use language like "bruv" and "cuz" and "bare". All of these words are made up and therefore are inarticulated and uneducated.


Overall, I have discovered that accent and dialect are an important factor in making a judgement upon someone, and the way you speak/what you say can make a massive impact upon what people think of you and how you are deemed.