This is a great site for in-depth clarification of grammar points - use their search bar.
Wednesday 1 October 2014
Article on ISIS that links to unspeak and the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis - a media text style model
This is quite a tough read if you are not up to speed with the issue but worth struggling with. A2 will find it useful for media texts, Power and Language Change and AS for Power.
I think that this is interesting to look at how there are different ways in which language can be looked at through different cultures. It allows us to see different meanings. Do you have a website or sheet that explains this hypothesis in a way that I can fully understand
The aspect of the hypothesis that matters to us in Lanugage A-Level is that the language you use to describe something guides the way people think about it. If you call rebels 'freedom fighters; people will support their cause. If you call them 'traitors', people will think negatively about them - all because of the connotations of those words. That is why, in the 'Unspeak' article that we read, Poole was arguing that by changing the term from 'global warming' (which sounds dangerous and as if industry, especially the oil industry, is at fault) to 'climate change' (which sounds unthreatening, even positive, and as if no-one is at fault) is hiding the problem in language - language that tries to control the way people think about the issue - using UNspeak (essentially lying by hiding the issue) rather than speaking clearly and honestly.
'unspeak' is used in pretty much every political speech, its an attempt to protect politicians from saying something that could/would suggest blame. couldn't you say that unspeak is a face saving act ?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9749434/Connecticut-school-shooting-Barack-Obamas-speech-in-full.html ^ another example of how unspeak or face saving acts are continuously used.
I think that this is interesting to look at how there are different ways in which language can be looked at through different cultures. It allows us to see different meanings.
ReplyDeleteDo you have a website or sheet that explains this hypothesis in a way that I can fully understand
The aspect of the hypothesis that matters to us in Lanugage A-Level is that the language you use to describe something guides the way people think about it. If you call rebels 'freedom fighters; people will support their cause. If you call them 'traitors', people will think negatively about them - all because of the connotations of those words. That is why, in the 'Unspeak' article that we read, Poole was arguing that by changing the term from 'global warming' (which sounds dangerous and as if industry, especially the oil industry, is at fault) to 'climate change' (which sounds unthreatening, even positive, and as if no-one is at fault) is hiding the problem in language - language that tries to control the way people think about the issue - using UNspeak (essentially lying by hiding the issue) rather than speaking clearly and honestly.
ReplyDelete'unspeak' is used in pretty much every political speech, its an attempt to protect politicians from saying something that could/would suggest blame. couldn't you say that unspeak is a face saving act ?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9749434/Connecticut-school-shooting-Barack-Obamas-speech-in-full.html
^ another example of how unspeak or face saving acts are continuously used.