Dr Robert Winster: How children produce and aquire language

In the video it was discussed that when a baby first learns language they use a different part of the brain in comparison to adults, this enables them to learn foreign languages at a much quicker rate then what an adult can. When a baby is first born their larynx is much higher, it drops by 3cm by the time they are 1 years old. A disadvantage of this is that there is less space in the throat and so the baby is unable to produce words, only sounds, the lack of space in the throat also means the baby is more likely to choke on food. I found it very interesting that it takes approximately 30 muscles for a 15 month old to produce one word, this is the stage Zack was at in the video.

As the documentary progresses we are introduced to Moira who is 2 and a half years old, to my surprise we learn that she is learning up to 10 new words a day, she is compared to a sponge because of the amount of language she is soaking up. Children naturally learn language rapidly due as throughout evolution children always had some type of threat or danger towards them and so in order to survive they had to learn language which obviously enabled them to communicate and in turn protect themselves. Leading on from this, children get grammar right nearly every single time, and they can apply logical rules for plurals if they are taught the exceptions.Towards the end of the video we learn about the 'terrible twos' when a child reaches two years old they develop self awareness, this leads to them using tantrums to get their own way.

Commentary on Broken homes 'damage brains of infant children'

The purpose of the text 'Broken homes damage brains of infant children' is to inform the audience of the issues that arise for young children regarding their linguistic development if they have come from a 'broken home'. The Tone of the article is informative as it provides the audience with information as it explores peoples studies and opinions.The audience of the text is quite unclear as it doesn't indicate what newspaper the article is written in, so from the text within the article i can assume that the audience is adults, in particular parents as contextually this could be interpreted as a study to improve attitudes towards parenthood. The mode of the text is an article, in regards to graphology the codes and conventions of an article are met, for example, the article is set out in 3 formal columns underneath a bold title.

After reading the article i think an extreme view has been taken on whether or not a childs linguistic development is affected if they have come from a 'broken family'. The article fails to distinguish what exactly a 'broken family' is, in my opinion i think it entirely depends on the details of the situation as to whether or not a child's acquisition is going to be affected or not. As an example, if the parents are failing to provide their child with the appropriate care and guidance, leading to neglection then the chances of the child's acquisition being affected are quite high. However, the term 'broken family' is usually used to describe a family that is any other than the nuclear family, I.E a biological mother, father and a child/ren.  If they are referring to any families other than the nuclear then i strongly disagree.

langauge and gender essay

Language and gender

In this essay I will be discussing my opinion, feminist linguistic and socio linguistic opinions on whether or not language is inherently sexist towards women. I personally believe that although there has been slight changes in language that lead us to believe it is equal, there is still much more that can be done. Due to the derogation of words, men continue to dominant the English language.

 Through my personal investigation I looked at the etymology of the word ‘spinster’ and the idea that the connotations of words associated with women are negative is seeming to be true. The original definition of the word ‘spinster’ is someone who practises spinning as their occupation, it is clear to see that over time the connotations of the word have changed drastically to the extent that the definition of the word has also changed. The word has undergone semantic derogation. It has moved from a positive semantic space to a negative. The lexical has now taken the meaning of an unwanted woman. The idea of derogation of lexis most commonly complies with words which are associated to woman, this therefore shows that sexism in language is apparent. Schulz explores the semantic derogation of women, she argues that there are a significant amount of slang words used to describe women that obtain 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 we carry 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.

 

Many theorists such as, Simon Heffer and Sara Mills very much support the idea that English language is male dominated from the verbs we use to the connotations attached to lexis.  Mills investigated the various lexical pairs and how they are lexical asymmetric to one another. She also did further research into the correlation between femininity and politeness and masculinity and impoliteness. She considered whether the politeness used was hereditary by women, essentially she focused on the way in which certain genders speak and the hereditary traits in which they entail. I agree with Mills’ opinion on this subject matter because it is clear to see in numerous social situations that the way in which males speak and interact with each other is much more impolite than the way in which females do. From my own personal research I observed my male peers and recognised that they do not have as many boundaries with each other as females do. Especially when it comes to the humour they use, the things they say to each other most women would interpret to be offensive and inappropriate but they take it as a joke. They also use a lot more taboo words then females do, this may be due to the language that females have inherited or because of the social expectations of women in society to act in a more ‘ladylike’ way. If this is the case then it is clear that language still obtains gendered stereotypes.

 

 Deborah Cameron argues that both men and women face certain expectations about the appropriate mode of speech they use in order to be socially accepted into their gender through her theory of ‘verbal hygiene’. She argues that women's verbal conduct is significant because it shapes the way in which women behave in other aspects other than speech. Furthermore, women have been instructed in the 'proper' ways of talking just like women are instructed on what is the 'proper' way to dress, for example the constant pressure to use cosmetics and in other 'feminine' kinds of behaviour. The acceptance of 'proper' speech style, Cameron describes as 'verbal hygiene'. Through her research she claims that 'verbal hygiene' is a way to make sense of language and that it also represents an attempt to impose order in society.

Stanley(1977) argues that women occupy a negative semantic space because of the number of marked forms that exist to describe female equivalents of male roles. She quotes ‘lady doctor’ and ‘female surgeon’ as well as more conventional marked forms through affixation to claim that women are unable to move into the positive space occupied by men because the negative conations that are fixed to majority of words associated with women.

When taken into consideration the patriarchal nature in which our society once was it is no surprise that many terms used to describe an occupation or job title portray sexist attitudes. Terms such as ‘lady doctor’, ‘male nurse’ and ‘actress’ are all marked in some way. This means that either the gender of the individual is stated whether that is through ‘lady’ or ‘male’ or a suffix(-ette or –ess) is used to convey that it is a women who has taken on the job role. Some people have stated that these marking items are evidence of default assumptions that for example, all doctors are men unless otherwise stated or that all nurses are female. It could therefore be concluded that society is still very much naive and closed off to the fact that women can take on the roles of men and vice versa, there shouldn’t be a negative stigma attached.

However, some linguists argue that lexical asymmetry is the reason for inequality within the English language. Lexical asymmetry is an imbalance in the meanings of two ostensibly matching words, for example, man and women should have simply opposite but equivalent meanings to one another.  However if you look at the dictionary definitions of being manly or womanly, they carry very different meanings. Manliness is seen as strength whereas womanliness is seen as weakness. You can take this argument further when thinking about all the expressions used that equate to being female with being weak, such as ‘Take it like a man’ ‘you cry like a girl’. This male also be linked to why there are marked and unmarked lexicals within occupation, as it is clear to see through my research that being a woman is deemed as less respected then if you are a man. Therefore some people within society feel the need to address the fact a women is taking on a traditional male dominated job role, such as ‘lady doctor’. In my opinion equality will be met when we can shake these marked lexicals because there should be no assumption as to what gender dominates an occupational, especially in the 21^st century. It is very ironic to me how society deems it necessary for it to be stated that it is a women if her occupation is doctor seeing as girls are currently achieving higher results in education.

Another area where prejudice has been noted within the English language is in the generic usage of certain terms, such as ‘mankind’ which is supposed to represent both men and women. However when the word is broken down it is clear to acknowledge that the lexical is only addressing one gender because ‘male’ is referenced within the word. Further research has shown me that pronouns are also a key feature within language as to why sexism is still apparent. This is because some people within society, such as Simon Hedger. He uses pronouns such as ‘he’ to represent both men and women, for example “Each student should hand in his homework to his tutor”. His argument is that it is ludicrous to have to use “he/she” when writing or speaking to a group of males and females in order to prevent offence being taken.

There are alternatives to the usages of generic terms such as ‘humankind’ instead of ‘mankind’ which are generally more inclusive and the use of non-gender specific plural pronouns such as ‘their’ or ‘he/she’ but people fail to use them because a sense of laziness amongst society. The question I present is, is it worth offending people, in particular women by carrying on the tradition of their oppression. Some may argue that this isn’t doing the following by but failing to address half the population when speaking I argue that it is exactly that. Overall I think that sexism is still very current within the English language and this is going to continue without fail unless there’s a drastic change in the language people use from marked words to the derogation of words. The next generations need to make a conscious decision as to whether or not they are going to continue on tradition and used certain parts of language that oppress women.

 

 

 

langauge and representation, tracking the history of words

The word 'spinster' was first recorded in 1362, Langland by Piers Plowman. The word comes from the Dutch language, it originally meant a women, sometimes a man although very rarely who spins, e.g. someone who practises spinning as regular occupation. Not so long after the first time 'spinster' was used, in 1380 it was used in Oxford city documents where it was used to link to names of women, originally in order to denote their occupation, but subsequently as the proper legal designation of someone who is unmarried. In 1636 it was first used in a slightly different context by Brideoake, it was used to refer to a spider or other insect that spin, this is rare. Finally, the last change of the denotation of 'spinster' was in 1817 by Scott Rob Ray. It was used to describe a women who was past the usual age of marriage.

The word 'bachelor' was first recorded in 1297 by R Gloucester. It originally meant when a man was in tarining to become a knight. The etymology of the word was Italy and France, not so long after the first use of the word, the denotation had changed. In 1386 it was used by Chaucer to desribe an unmarried man of a marriagable age. It was later on used in 1609 by Sir T Smith, the meaning of the word slighlty changed to a knight of the lowest but most ancient order, he would of had the full title of a gentleman who has been knighted. Through my research i have depicted that there the lexical 'bachelor' has carried many different meanings from the first use of the word up until the most recent. Moving on from these aged denotations of the word, one of  the most recent new use of the word was in 1959 when it was used in the term 'bachelor pad' in Chicago.

The word 'madam' was first recorded in 1300 by an Oxford student called Harl, the meaning of the word was a form of politeful address originally used by servants when speaking to their mistresses and people in gerneral speaking to women of a high rank. The etymology of the word was from France. Later on, in 1854, Northhamptonshire tje emaning of the word changed to being used in anger or contempt. Finally one of the most recent recording of the change in the meaning of the word was in 1952, when it was used in the term 'madam shop'. This refers to a small shop which sells fashionable ready-to-wear clothes for affluent women of mature taste.

The word 'master' was first recorded in OE by King Alfred, the original meaning of the word was a person predominantly, a man having authority, direction or control over the action of another or other people. The etymology of the lexical 'master' was borrowed from Latin. Furthernore in 1536 the meaning of the word changed to the head or master of a household or house, this was used by M Bryan. Similar this still correlates with the first meaning of the word, for a man to have aurthority or control, t has just transfered to control over property.  I have depicted that through my research there has been numerous changes in the meaning of the word, although only slightly with all of the different meanings of the word still denoting authroity and control. The most recent change in the meaning of the word was in 1993, 'master-servant'. This is just referring to a situation when there is a master and a servant.

Sarah Mills, Deborah Cameron and Muriel Schultz

Deborah Cameron- Theory of verbal hygiene

Cameron argues that both men and women face certain expectations about the appropriate mode of speech they use in order to be socially accepted into their gender. She argues that women's verbal conduct is significant because it shapes the way in which women behave in other aspects other than speech. Furthermore, women have been instructed in the 'proper' ways of talking just like women are instructed on what is the 'proper' way to dress, for example the constant pressure to use cosmetics and in other 'feminine' kinds of behaviour. The acceptance of 'proper' speech style, Cameron describes as 'verbal hygiene'. Through her research she claims that 'verbal hygiene' is a way to make sense of language and that it also represents an attempt to impose order in society.



Muriel Schulz- The semantic derogation of women

Schulz argues that there are a significant amount of slang words used to describe women that obtain 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 is action. The main issue Schulz addresses is that the language we use today we carry 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.


Sarah Mills
 Mills investigated the various lexical pairs and how they are lexical asymmetric to one another. She also did further research in the correlation between femininity and politeness and masculinity and impoliteness. She considered whether the politeness used was hereditary by women, essentially she focused on the way in which certain genders speak and the hereditary traits in which they entail. 

Attitudes to language questionnaire findings

      When analysing my questionnaires I decided to group various responses to my questions based on gender because I found this particularly more interesting. The first response I found quite surprising with to the following 'Do you think it is right for someone with an Essex or cockney accent to be in a position of power, like a member of parliament?'. To my surprise, 100% of males and females both said yes. One female went on to say that as long as they speak using correct grammar it doesn't matter about their accent, similarly one of the males that completed my questionnaire said as long as they do the job correctly the way in which they speak is irrelevant. I think this shows a big shift in attitudes today about language and accents because many years ago it would of been unheard of that someone with an accent such as cockney would of been in such a well respected occupation. This is because unfortunately the respect would  of been absent for the individual due to their accent, it would commonly be assumed that they are not intelligent enough for the role because of how they talk.

  

      My next question was '  Do you think you make an assumption about a person’s intellect based on the way they speak? For example if someone speaks using Received Pronunciation (the way a news presenter speaks) would you assume that they are more intelligent than someone who speaks with non-standard English (the way someone on The Only Way is Essex speaks)?' I wasn't expecting the results I got, 75% of women said no whilst 75% of men said yes which I found particularly intriguing. One women went onto say that ' the content and correct use of grammar and vocabulary is what is most important' to support her point. Whereas on the other hand one of the males aid the following to support his answer ' Non standard English seems less intelligent as they have a smaller vocabulary'. In addition to 75% of women saying no, 12.5%  said yes and no, justifying their answer through the following words ' I wouldn't assume a person was less intelligent for not speaking using Received Pronunciation, but I might assume greater intelligence if someone did speak using RP.' Through these results it is clear to see that women appear more relaxed in a sense, to how other people speak and refrain from creating an opinion about that person, whereas men on the other hand think that depending on the way you speak, it determines how intelligent you are.

n    

      Although on the other hand I found that women were more conscientious when it came to the way they spoke themselves, as opposed to how others speak stated n my results above. I asked the following question, ' Do you change the way you speak depending on who you are speaking to? For example does how you speak to your friends differ from how you will speak to your parents or teachers, if so please give an example of the different words/language you will use?'. Surprisingly 100% of the women I asked said yes, however 75% of men said no. This thereby suggests that men are more likely to just speak in the way they always have regardless of if they will be accepted by a social group or person at the time. Whereas women will adapt their voices significantly more to be accepted by their social groups of interaction at the time. Some may even argue these results are an example of whereby language is written for men about men and by men because they do not feel the need to alter their accents and language used to be able to socialise comfortably with others regardless of if they are in a higher position of power or the same social class/group.

      

       Another question where I found my results particularly interesting was my final question, '  Do you think there is an accent that should be considered the correct way to speak?(if so, please identify which accent you think this is)'. In my results i found that the answer across the board, One answered followed with ' all accents should be acceptable' another with ' having a variety of accents makes things more interesting'. Linking to my first paragraph i think my results show a trend in the respect that attitudes towards accents and dialect have changed over time as people are becoming more open to and accepting of how  other people talk.