Class Work for 26/04/2016

Task: Write an opinion article about the use of work language in other contexts
Intended Audience: Readers of The Guardian 'Comment is Free' section

How Using Work Language At Home Can Help You Get Ahead

Think bringing work-speak home will hold you back? In fact, it's quite the opposite, and here's why:

It is often said that work language should stay in the workplace, and that it has negative influence on those it is used frequently around at home, particularly children.
In a recent Guardian article, I must admit, a very good point for this case was made. The article focused on the use of working language in a children's care home. The article included a poignant interview with a young girl in care. This girl said that, in her care home environment, the use of professional terms such as; 'On shift', 'Risk Assessment' and 'LAC Review' were commonplace, and that this made it difficult for her to consider the environment a 'home'. In the face of this, I must concede, it is impossible to deny the negative effects that being surrounded by such language would have on a child in the care system, or any child for that matter. However, it is important that, as with all language, we take work-place language into context.
In the case presented in the article, it is clear that the use of workplace language was severely detrimental to the happiness and well-being of the child, and especially around people as vulnerable as those in care. In situations like this, people should look at the context and potential consequences of using language like this, and decide against it. However, just because it is not appropriate in one particular context doesn't mean that it's wrong in all situations!



The reason i'm arguing for the use of work language at home is due to personal experience. For me, the pursuit of knowledge is something that has played a key role in almost all aspects of my life. As pretentious as that may sound, I don't mean my goal is to become an academic genius or anything like that, but as they say: 'knowing is half the battle' and knowing as much as possible, no matter how trivial is something I take great joy in. It is probably because of this that I have always taken great interest in the details of my parents work (they are a nurse and a substance misuse counselor, respectively) and have learned a lot of, technically useless, but fascinating language and other information.
To me, this can only be a good thing. Why would you not want to broaden your range of vocabulary and knowledge? For this purpose, I support the use of work language in the home. However, I acknowledge that the use of said language should be considered based on situational context because, as stated in the referenced article, using cold, detached and impersonal care system language in an environment with such vulnerable individuals present is invariably a bad thing.
To conclude, I do not think this wonderful and varied language should be kept strictly within the discourse communities from whence it came, and that it should be shared with anyone with an interest!

Gender Speech

Audience: centre-left politically aligned



Topic: Undervaluation/mistreatment of women in the workplace/professional environments

Points to make:
'Mansplaining', Harassment, employment prospects, pay(?), undervaluation of knowledge/experience


---




When you think of a large company or corporation, what comes to mind? Most people would think of a high-rise building, office cubicles and an army of suit-clad staff. However, a lot of people would envisage the majority of these staff to be men. Why is it that whenever we think of a white-collar worker we see this popular image of a clean, well-presented man in a suit, when in actual fact many women work in such environments?




There are several reason such an image is so widely believed. One such reason is that up until a few generations ago, the workforce really was made up almost entirely of men. After the world wars, when the value of a female-inclusive workforce was realised, this became an archaic, outdated idea.
Another reason that this image persists is due to media portrayal. We see it everywhere. On television shows and in films, on adverts everywhere and elsewhere besides. It is not surprising that so many people have this image ingrained in their minds after being bombarded with it for so long.






Despite the relative equality on the office floor that we see nowadays, something that still causes much controversy is the inequality in the management and upper ranks of these kinds of jobs.
On executive boards worldwide, women hold only 12% of seats. With such an underrepresentation of women in these powerful position it can be difficult to see how their best interests will be represented fairly and effectively.




Another issue faced daily by women in the workplace is known as 'mansplaining', the act whereupon a man presumes that a woman has little or no knowledge on a certain subject or topic and goes on to explain it the woman, often leaving the recipient feeling patronised. Examples of this include: females who happen to be IT technicians being told how to do their jobs by unaware male workers with far less expertise in the field, and a male worker explaining, in great detail, the intricacies of the structure of the United Nations, while unaware that the woman has just as much  knowledge on the subject as him. This stems from ideas proposed by language theorists such as Lakoff, who believe that women's language was 'deficient'.
As an extension of this concept, for example, if a senior member of management was asking for a member of staff with an advanced knowledge of how a particular administrative system works. Say there were two prime candidates for this task, one male and one female. The female however, is more experienced with the system than the male. Historically, despite this, the man would've been picked, unless the woman had made it very clear that she was the true expert in the situation. This happens in many fields and occupations, especially those considered 'male' jobs or tasks, when in fact, it is just as viable to consider that a female is more than suitable for the task.




In spite of all this, things are improving. With more women CEO's than ever before, and the skills and abilities of women being more and more recognised things are looking bright for the future of gender equality in the workplace.

AS Lang Holiday Homework

Audience: Centre-Left Politically inclined individuals (Readers of blogs such as: Crooked Timbers and The Daily Howler and perhaps The Guardian)

Gender Neutral Pronouns - Are 'They' the Future?

In today's society, gender politics are as prominent an issue as they have been at any other time in history, if not more so than in the past. If you spend any amount of time, particularly on the internet, and have come across any gender-related circles or sites, you'll more than likely be familiar with the large amount of people that are campaigning for gender-specific, and gender-neutral pronouns. While there have been people campaigning for the recognition various alternative attitudes to gender for a very long time, these points of view are becoming more and more prominent in recent years, with the rise of the internet offering a platform for many people to express their views on the matter and interact with like-minded people. One of the issues at the forefront of this movement is to do with the acknowledgement of various pronouns that could be used to refer to people of 'alternative' genders.

Now, in terms of coming up with a pronoun for use by gender-neutral individuals, there are several ways in which you could view this issue.
On one hand, from a socially progressive viewpoint, it is easy to see where the supporters of this movement are coming from. You could say that it is hard for people like you or me, who have always applied to the standard gender binary, to understand what it might be like to not have an applicable pronoun which could be used to describe you. Most of us have more than likely never even considered anything other than he or she as something needed in everyday language. I'm sure it isn't a particularly pleasant feeling to be an individual uncomfortable with how they are being referred to in every day life, but having never experienced such a thing, I can only imagine.
Another viewpoint from which you could support the creation of a gender-neutral pronoun is from a linguistic perspective, for those who wish to add a new dimension of accuracy to their writing, and to simultaneously include gender-neutral concepts and people. From this angle, many people would be content to use 'them/they' to refer to a gender neutral individual, however this, from a language perspective, feels grammatically odd when saying something such as 'Riley thought they would be late'.

Because of these two stances, and various others besides, people have taken it upon themselves to campaign for recognition of various gender-neutral alternatives.
Some examples of these proposed alternatives include:

• 'Ze' (e.g. 'Ze is over there', 'I called zir/zem')
• 'Xe' (e.g. 'Xe is over there', 'I called xem')
• 'Ve' (e.g. 'Ve is over there', 'I called vem')

These alternative pronouns are just some that have been proposed for many, many years now. With the internet helping them become more popular in the modern age than ever before, these words are certainly picking up in terms of use in wider society. However, despite the blatant demand for a pronoun to be officially recognized, the Oxford Dictionary (as of April 2016) has yet to add such an alternative to its dictionary. This seems interesting to me. The Oxford Dictionary adds new words and such to its ranks four times a year. In the most recent addition, March 2016, words such as 'antrin' (an adjective of Scottish origin meaning 'strange' or 'rare') and kilig (a Tagalog verb meaning to 'experience shivers and pangs from strong emotions, such as fear or desire') were added. While I have no doubt that someone will find use for these words, surely there is a much clearer demand for gender-neutral pronouns to be officially recognized.

Now, from where I stand, I can certainly see the need for words such as these to be recognized for these groups of people, and grammatical accuracy. However, most words introduced are small, niche terms that the majority of us wouldn't ever come across in our everyday lives and use of language. The same cannot really be said for adding a new set of pronouns altogether. Younger generations are certainly better at adapting to rapid changes in the world around them, with language being no exception, despite this, I do question the viability of immediately phasing in such a large term into everyday use. This would be harder, i'm sure, for the older generations to incorporate, having been set in their ways for so long in terms of language. The fact that most people would be content to use 'they', myself included, is due to the fact that alternative pronouns are not something that many people would need to use on a regular basis. This would make it hard, no matter how many times people are told, to incorporate them regularly and consistently. It is well known that Transgender individuals often feel very uncomfortable when being referred to as the wrong pronoun, and i'm sure that gender-neutral individuals feel much the same. After all, the reason we have gone so long without a gender-neutral pronoun is due to the fact that the English language in particular is very binary, and things 'in the middle' are often uncertainly or broadly defined, gender being no different. It is for this reason that, with both wider societal reception of change, and the thoughts and feeling of individuals affected that I will, and would personally encourage, the use of the 'they/them' set of pronouns. This eliminates the requirement to educate society, and every non-native speaker a whole new set of pronouns and while grammatical issues will no doubt occur, it is a mere matter of subtly skirting around them to adapt. Some would argue that I have no right to tell people this, to represent gender-neutral individuals in such a way, and perhaps they may be right. That said, this is opinion is mine, and very well may be mine alone, if that is the case, then so be it.