Dr Robert Winston: How children produce and acquire language

• Words are the most important thing a child can learn.
• When babies first learn language, they use a different part of the brain to what adults use for learning a new language.
• The larynx is higher up in babies. The advantage of this is that they can’t choke, however the disadvantage is that they produce less language. Having said this, the larynx drops by three centimetres by the time they’re a year old.
• It can potentially take thirty different muscles to coordinate a sound, e.g. mummy. This is when a child is fifteen months old.
• The larynx adapts to how much language we can produce.
• Toddlers can learn up to ten new words a day and this is due to social interaction (Vygotsky.)
• Children can get grammar right almost immediately, with the exception being irregular grammar.
• Children have an instinctive map for grammar.
• Children can apply logical rules for plurals, but have to be taught the exceptions.
• When a child reaches eighteen months, they can use tantrums to get their own way. This is because they are developing self-awareness. Use of pronouns start to kick in here too.
• There are constant alterations in the developing brain.

Art of Cookery – Roasting and Boiling Text Analysis

The purpose of the text is to instruct, written using formal lexis. It’s in the mode of a recipe and due to it being written in 1747, the audience would be simply cooks and not those who are just into cooking as a pastime. It would only be aimed at females, because pragmatically males wouldn’thave been seen in the kitchen during this time.

The age of the text is emphasised through the use of graphology. The font is old-fashioned and basic, as at the time there wasn’t the technology around to produce eye-catching recipes. Standardisation is something that was coming into place during the time the text was written, however there are still clear examples of non-standard forms. For example, there is capitalisation of what we’d now consider to be concrete nouns, e.g. ‘Mutton’ and ‘Paper.’ Nowadays, these concrete nouns are not capitalised, showing a clear change in standardisation. In terms of graphemic symbols, there is consistent use of the extended ‘s’, which we no longer see in modern texts.

There is a clear semantic field of cooking, shown lexically by the words: ‘Gravy’ ‘Flour’ ‘Pepper’ and ‘Salt.’ This is referential language as the audience will be able to relate to what is being discussed in the text. There is reference to laying the meat to the ‘fire.’ Once again, the use of lexis ‘fire’ shows the age of the text as no one nowadays uses the fire to prepare a meal. Lexis ‘mutton’ and ‘lamb’ have undergone pejoration as today a woman can be described as ‘mutton dressed as lamb’ meaning a lady who dresses too young for her age.

Broken homes 'damage brains of infant children'

I agree with the issues raised in the article: ‘Broken homes ‘damage brains of infant children’’. If you haven’t experienced a ‘normal’ upbringing whereby you’re raised within a loving and caring family, then your chances of developing your full mental capacity is unlikely. Children from an early age are influenced by parents and siblings, especially in terms of speech. They listen to what their elders are saying and pick up on words and phrases that they later attempt to develop. If young children are having to witness things that lead to their family being considered ‘dysfunctional’ then they aren’t being given the fair opportunity to develop as any other child from a ‘normal’ family would. For example, if a child’s parents fail to show empathy, the child may therefore struggle to show compassion towards any others in their own lives. In the long term, what they’ve experienced in their early upbringing could greatly affect their ability to converse with others or act in ways that someone of their age should be.

Opinion Based Article – Responding to ‘Don’t Fear the Tweeter’

Opinion Based Article – Responding to ‘Don’t Fear the Tweeter’

It is a common belief that technology is affecting the way that the youth of today write and potentially speak…but in actual fact, this isn’t necessarily true. Those who have been consistently snapped at by parents as youngsters: “ain’t ain’t a word!” should know that to say ain’t in a formal situation isn’t probably going to contribute any further to them getting a job. More likely the opposite.

 

Take LOL. Once meaning lots of love, now more commonly used as laughing out loud. Neither are you going to say verbally (unless you’re a top class idiot or being overly sarcastic.) Your Nan hugs you goodbye; neither you nor her are going to declare: ‘lol’ as you go to leave the house. Your pal cracks a classic joke in class. Have you ever seen the entire class jump up in enthusiasm screaming: ‘lol’ at the top of their voice? No. Lol is just one example of a term that is simply used for communicating online. There is absolutely no questioning that there is a divide between technology and how the youth of today communicate vocally.

 

Texting was invented for convenience and quickness, not to carefully articulate and construct your messages using perfect grammar, paragraphs and punctuation. You’re meeting someone for lunch. Are you really going to say: “Hello,” *insert new paragraph* I hope you are well. I am five minutes away. *new paragraph* see you soon.” When, in reality, you could simply put: “hi five mins away c u soon.”

 

No one in their right mind is going to physically write the latter but for texting, it’s ideal. Texting is supposed to be short and snappy. Having said this, evidently you will get those individuals who are ‘old-school’ and will want to write and construct everything perfectly but it’s often just not necessary. If the desperation to send everything perfectly is there, then send a letter. You have to keep up with the ever-changing world that now consists of consistent changes in technology. Goodness knows what will be around in fifty years’ time, or what could be introduced tomorrow. We should embrace it, instead of shunning it. Experiment, instead of coming up with all of this nonsense that technology is affecting the way the youth of today communicate. Go back to the days before computers, and the chances are, there still would’ve been criticisms of the way children spoke. Technology is simply being used as the target, the target in which the blame is falling upon. It’s an exceptional existence in our world today and the negativity surrounding it should be overlooked.

History of Words

History of Words (Language and Gender)

Spinster:

-          The earliest record of the word being used in a written text was in 1362. ‘Langland Piers Plowman A. v. 130   And my wyf at Westmunstre þat wollene cloþ made, Spak to þe spinsters for to spinne hit softe.’

-          It’s a Dutch word.

-          It has changed meaning over time – for example the earliest definition of the word is: ‘A woman (or, rarely, a man) who spins, esp. one who practises spinning as a regular occupation.’ In comparison, the most recent definition of the word is: ‘A woman still unmarried; esp. one beyond the usual age for marriage, an old maid.’

-          The primary meaning has altered slightly; in 1380 the definition was ‘Appended to names of women, originally in order to denote their occupation, but subsequently (from the 17th century) as the proper legal designation of one still unmarried.’ In 1719, it was altered to just simply: ‘A woman still unmarried; esp. one beyond the usual age for marriage, an old maid.’ The focus is on relationship status and not occupation, showing a semantic shift.

-          The spelling hasn’t changed and it’s consistently been used as a noun.

Bachelor:

-          The earliest record of the word being used in a written text was in 1297. ‘ R. Gloucester's Chron. 453   Syre ȝong bacheler..þow art strong & corageus.’

-          The word originates from Italy.

-         It has changed meaning over time – for example the earliest definition of the word is: ‘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.]’ This is in contrast to the most recent definition, whereby it relates to accommodation where a bachelor would stay, (a bachelor being a single man.)

-          The primary meaning has been extended upon; in 1386, the meaning was: ‘An unmarried man (of marriageable age).’ In 1604, the definition expands to: ‘An inexperienced person, a novice’. This suggests that because the man isn’t married, therefore he is inexperienced in that aspect of life.

-          There have been several different spellings of the word, ranging from batcheler to bachilers. It’s used as a noun.

Slut:

-          The earliest record of the word being used in a written text was in 1402. ‘ T. Hoccleve Let. of Cupid 237   The foulest slutte of al a tovne.’

-          The word originates from Germany (it is thought.)

-          It has changed meaning over time – for example the earliest definition is: ‘A woman of dirty, slovenly, or untidy habits or appearance; a foul slattern.’ This is in contrast to the most modern definition: ‘The guttering of a candle.’

-          The primary meaning has been extended upon, take the earliest definition of the word ‘slut’ - in 1450 it expanded to: ‘A woman of a low or loose character; a bold or impudent girl; a hussy, jade.’ This has further reference to the female being sexually promiscuous.

-          Slut in the past has been spelt as ‘slutte.’ The word is most commonly used as a noun.

Stud

-          The earliest record of the word being used in a written text was in 1000. ‘in T. Wright & R. P. Wülcker Anglo-Saxon & Old Eng. Vocab. (1884) I. 119/39   Equartium, stood.’

-          The word originates from Old English.

-          Its meaning has changed over time, the earliest definition being: ‘An establishment in which stallions and mares are kept for breeding. Also, the stallions and mares kept in such an establishment.’ This is in comparison to the most recent definition which is: ‘A man of (reputedly) great sexual potency or accomplishments; a womanizer, a habitual seducer of women. In weakened uses: as a familiar term of address among men; a boy-friend or escort.’

-          The primary meaning (which typically is the most recent definition) has been extended to: ‘Hence (without explicit sexual significance): a man, a fellow, esp. one who is well-informed; a youth. U.S. slang (chiefly African-American)’. This shows that it is used more as slang than as an actual taboo term.

-          Another example of a spelling of stud is ‘stode’. It is a noun.

Semantic Derogation

Semantic Derogation

 

Muriel Schultz

She discovered that sexual words tend to carry a heavy weight of gendered and moral disapproval. She documented the process of ‘semantic derogation’ affecting sexual terms when applied to women. She discovered that there are no limits to the proliferation of sexual stories – and all activities, discourses and technologies are veritably sexualised.

 

Deborah Cameron

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 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.

 

Sarah Mills

She researched into:

• The use of ‘he’ as a generic pronoun.
• The sexual bias of ‘man’ nouns: e.g. postman, chairman.
• Different terms to distinguish between female and male versions, often with negative connotations for the females: e.g. bachelor/spinster, master/mistress
• Terms without a female equivalent: e.g. single woman, career woman
• Offensive terms for an unattractive woman e.g. crone, bag, frump.
   
  I discovered that there are more words for a sexually promiscuous female than a sexually promiscuous male. Words for females included: slag, slut, sket, skank, whore, hoe. Words for males includes: fuckboy, player, lad.
  Words for females are all negative whereas some of the words for boys can be seen as positive. I asked a friend in Somerset if she had any regional terms for sexually promiscuous males and females; she came up with the same words and didn’t have any others. She also agreed that there were less words for boys.
   

Questionnaire Analysis

Everyone who responsded to the questionnaire was female, except from one person (my dad.) The age ranges were 10-19 and 40-49. Everyone ticked 'sometimes' to using different accents and dialects dependent on who they're talking to. Half of the people admitted they would judge people based on their accents, yet half said they wouldn't, as it's the way you've been brought up. Someone did make the point that accents can sometimes be put on, though. Everyone said they are likely to say "I'm not going tonight" more than using 'ain't' or 'I couldn't comprehend'. Based on who asnwered the questionnaire, I agree with this. When it came to altering how you speak and the words you use, it was a mutual answer that more informal talk was used around family and friends yet more formal talk was used with teachers and work colleagues. Everyone agreed that speaking in standard English is important - one person even wrote that it's important as it influences the way in which you write. There was a difference in opinion regarding whether English language is being influenced by other cultures; everyone aside from one thought other cultures were an influence. The person who didn't agree said that our language is unique and doesn't need influence from elsewhere. In relation to groups using slang, everyone said that certain cultures and 'chavs' would use it, and my dad, being from the East End, there were lots of Cockney mannerisms.