1B - Situation (Changing Attitudes Question) - FINISHED CLASS ESSAY FROM TODAY

Hi all,

Here is the finished essay from today. Have a go at rewriting some of the paragraphs, or remembering the content in note form from memory.

Using this extract as a starting point, discuss how changing standards or attitudes can affect the language people use.

Within the extract, it is clear that Mitchell’s attitude to holocaust-related language is different to the Israeli couple who complained about the actions documented in the passage. Whereas the couple use an intensifier to stress the fact that they are descended the ‘very’ people who Hitler was trying to exterminate, Mitchell seems to believe that their reaction is still a little bit over the top. Mitchell draws attention to the idea that the exclamative ‘Heil Hitler!’ was seen by the couple as an example of the abstract noun ‘anti-semitism’, but his arguably more modern values lead him to claim, ‘I just don’t think that’s true’. Here, the verb ‘think’ and adjective ‘true’ are used to suggest that he is not criticising the couple for being offended, but that he feels they have taken the actions of the young couple the wrong way. The use of the verb and noun in the phrase ‘doing the moustache’ is significant as it shows that Mitchell believes that we should be a bit more accepting of the ‘offensive’ language used by the pranksters due to the context in which it was used.

Mitchell is clearly a little bit torn by the use of language surrounding the exhibit, however. Near the start of the article, he questions whether or not the abstract noun ‘attraction’ is appropriate when discussing something that has caused such offense. When Mitchell juxtaposes the noun ‘museum’ and ‘racket’ as alternatives, he clearly is attempting to display that there is something culturally unacceptable about applying such positive lexis to an exhibition which features such a controversial figure as Hitler. Despite having far more liberal attitudes than the couple who made the complaint, he later shows discomfort at the whole idea by using the sardonic verb ‘frolicking’ to describe the offenders’’ actions, implying that they have acted inappropriately.

Steven Pinker, a professor from Harvard university, had a lot to say about how people’s attitudes towards language can affect what people say. Pinker said that, ‘semantics is about the relation of words to other human concerns’. Here, Pinker seems to be trying to influence what people think about the actual meaning of a word. By using the noun ‘semantics’ coupled with the plural noun phrase’ human concerns’, Pinker tries to explain that a word can be very sensitive in its use if it is likely to make certain members of the population feel a certain way based on contextual suffering associated with that word, such as words linked to slavery or oppression.

Pinker’s ideas can be applied to the offensive taboo noun ‘n***er’ which is often seen by many as one of the most offensive words in the English language. The word itself actually originated from the Portuguese for the word ‘black’ and so, from a purely semantic perspective, it may seem unusual that it carries so much more offense than the politically correct English term ‘black’. However, we should also consider Pinker’s ideas of the ‘euphemism treadmill’ which states that words that are used to denote minority groups will usually become offensive over time due to their use in context. This word has become very offensive due to the fact that it was first used during the transatlantic slave trade and so its use is often associated with the oppression of racial minorities. However, in more recent times, semantic reclamation has occurred which has resulted in the noun being used in more positive contexts. Rap group NWA (N**gaz with attitude) use a colloquial version of the plural noun, along with the preposition ‘with’ and abstract noun ‘attitude’ to suggest that they are happy to adopt the title as a response to the brutality of police in 1990s USA. The abstract noun implies that they are proud to be known as something different to the police, and will fight against the oppression they feel they are suffering.

Another example of semantic reclamation can be seen with the taboo adjective ‘queer’. Originally meaning ‘unusual’, this term first became offensive due to the fact that it implied that homosexuality was different and abnormal. Again, due to the euphemism treadmill, it was quickly seen as totally offensive and unacceptable when applied to gay people. However, in more recent times, the word has been reclaimed such as in the title of the TV show ‘Queer eye for the straight guy’, in which the preposition ‘for’ and adjective ‘straight’ imply that gay fashion sense is a benefit to straight people. This demonstrates a huge change in attitude. More recently, the term has been adopted by LGBT+ activists as the politically correct term for people who are gender fluid. The term ‘genderqueer’ is now used by many activist groups, with ‘pride.com’ claiming it was inspired by ‘the queer movement’s effort to “queer” the normalcy of cisgenderness and heterosexuality’. The unusual use of the verb ‘queer’ juxtaposed with abstract nouns ‘cisgenderness’ and ‘heterosexuality’ are used to show that the term ‘queer’ has been so successfully reclaimed semantically that people now feel they can use it to make the ‘norm’ or straightness seem unusual by comparison.

Similar changing attitudes over time have also had a huge effect on the language used in advertising. In an extract that we studied in class, an advert for women’s shoes from the 1950s featured a woman being physically stood on, with the imperative phrase ‘keep her where she belongs’ accompanying the image. During this patriarchal era, this would have seemed acceptable as the verb ‘keep’ and pronoun ‘her’ clearly address the male partner of the woman, rather than the woman herself, reflecting the accepted norm that the man would have been in charge of a married couple’s finances. Today, this gender expectation would be seen as unacceptable, and now women are expected to be in charge of their own finances and purchases. This change has been largely brought about through the middle part of the twentieth century where the political correctness movement encouraged society to view women as equal to men, in turn changing peoples’ attitudes to a woman’s role in society. The present tense verb ‘belongs’ would also be considered unacceptable by modern standards as it is not seen as politically correct to impose an expectation on a person and where they ‘belong’ simply due to their gender.

Lastly, it is interesting to note that, although the political correctness movement has had a huge effect on the language used in corporate or social settings, the field of comedy seems to be much slower in adapting to the attitude that discrimination is unacceptable. In his recent ‘Humans’ tour, famous comedian Ricky Gervais ridiculed transgender celebrity Caitlin Jenner due to her decision to change from her birth gender. Gervais attempted to derive humour by saying, ‘If you feel you’re a woman, you are…which is fine because I’ve always identified as a chimp’. By using the past participle verb ‘identified’ which is from the semantic field of gender reassignment, and the noun ‘chimp’, Gervais appears to ridicule the idea that Jenner has sincerely been affected by being transgender. It appears that he is mocking the very concept of identifying as something other than the way you are born. In this PC age, many people would see this as offensive and unacceptable due to modern liberal attitudes. However, it is possible that this is simply being said in an ironic way to gain a reaction from the audience, as many comedians do. Sarah Thorne sums this up nicely by saying, ‘Distasteful uses of language are tempered by the understanding that we would not act that way [in real life’. The verb ‘tempered’ suggests that, although the audience would normally see this prejudice as unacceptable, they are happy to laugh at it in the context of comedy because they known that Gervais is a performer, and does not mean what he says.

In conclusion, it is clear that changing attitudes over time have had a huge effect on the language that people see as acceptable. Largely, this has changed the way in which people consider their choices so that they do not offend people. Although, even words which are offensive are sometimes still used if they have gone through the process of semantic reclamation or being used ironically.