How People Use Language - Literature review Example

Name: Tutor: Title: Language and Power Course: Date: 1. Introduction Language varies according to how people use it and apply it in the task at hand as well as in society where it is used. Although some linguists focus on describing the syntax, phonetics and morphology of a language, this research examines what language can tell about people as individuals, members of a society and how people from different corners of the world interact with one another. It is important to note that even though not all people study language through a formal way, at least everyone has an opinion about it (Linda & Shân 1999). Fairclough (1992) argues that a critical awareness of a language happens in the normal situations through which individuals reflect on their day to day interactions and communications with other people. He emphasizes that being able to understand how language is used while thinking about it in various ways helps to make a clear view on society and other people. 2. Language and gender The study of sexism in English shows that the use of English language is a reflection of the power that men have over time held in various areas of life. Language represents this social power by treating words differently to refer to men and women. It has been observed that using sexism in language makes some people insulted. Therefore, it is crucial to avoid sexist language as it creates an image of a society in which women are seen to have lower social and economic status than men. Over and above, people need to avoid ambiguity when referring to gender identity or roles by carefully choosing adjectives, nouns and pronouns that are specifically used to describe other people. For example, the masculine pronoun ‘he’ should not be used carelessly to mean both sexes (Trudeau 1994). Language and sexuality has been considered as the inquiry into the specific role played by language in presenting and organizing sex as a significant domain of human experience (Cameron & Kulik 2006). Different feminists’ efforts to balance language and gender may focus on seizing power from men to ensure that they share it equally with women or simply diffuse the different powers that give males authority over females. Therefore, acknowledging the significant role for language both in establishing and maintaining of power relationships should begin with understanding how power operates within and through language. It also requires the knowledge of different versions of change that could be advocated for in the attempt to balance language and power (Joseph 2006). For example, questions on whether to change society in the first place so as to change language or vice versa? Is it an issue of concern to allow people use powerful phrases of language? What is the significance of changing the manner in which language is used so as to change the focus on how power is reproduced? The response to the above questions requires an understanding of how language is applied to establish and maintain gender in terms of gender order, categorization and discourse. In this case, therefore, it is important to address the various ways through which people either consciously or unconscious use linguistic resources purposely to propagate the gender ideologies. Furthermore, it would be crucial to discuss how dominant gender ideologies are often reinforced in time to time talking and communication discourses as well as the perceived gender ideologies that are inbuilt in the communications. Eckert and McConnell-Ginet (2005, p.79) states that language and gender concerns the interpretation of how linguistic resources are used to accomplish social ends. However, the authors argue that analysis of language and gender should go beyond the aspects of interpretation of the nature and use of gender ideology in the thought process and take into account the analytic linkages between linguistics structures and their associated functions based on the gender perspective. The focal point of gender discourse has been on the dichotomy between male domination and gender separation and difference as reflected in gender practices and labeling. From the perspective of gender order, categorization, culture and language dimension, it can be noted that communication situations are often loaded with “gender lore” that is commonly manifested in different styles of language use and cultural practices. Therefore, it is through these social and interactive instances that are separately referred to either directly or indirectly to collect and present discourses on the basis of gender order. As a result, gender is embedded in different actions, beliefs, desires and institutions involved in the mapping of the language use through day to day interaction and communication as well as the establishment of social order (Shitemi 2009). On the other hand, differences in gender ideology can be generated to promote gender and power hierarchies particularly in situations where the necessary outcomes of inequality can be justified. It has been considered that convention and gender assumptions are expressed through statements that drive gender ideologies in a society, for example, men are strong and women are weak (Eckert & McConnell-Ginet 2005). It is important to note that the function and use of language for attribution and communication, mapping and labeling plays an integral role in the maintenance and change of constructed gender order. This is because gender orders are inbuilt in varying experiences and settings of human life. From Eckert and McConnell-Ginet argument, it is apparent that a study of language and gender means looking at language as a tool for articulating and reflecting how it is used to construct and maintain the different gender orders and categories. 3. Language and politics The art of persuasion is referred to as rhetoric. This implies that rhetoric is a practical skill or tool that is used to persuade an audience. By taking into account the ancient Greece’s five-step process for a speech making namely; invention or idea arrangement, style, memory and delivery, a speaker or politician can be able to deliver a believable and more persuasive speech. Focusing on the element of style and in rhetorical terms, it can be noted that this step is basically concerned with wording the argument and shaping the text to make it more persuasive. Style should not be seen as a mere ornamental addition to words but a fundamental approach to communication and persuasion. Therefore, it is crucial for the writers or speakers to use the right style for the messages they are communicating or addressee to whom they are speaking. This means that the manner in which the other people shapes and styles their messages can have powerful influence on how the hearers or readers will perceive the message (Mooney et al. 2010). In this section, examples from famous political speeches will be analyzed paying attention on how they represent the use of rhetorical styles to appeal to audience. It has been observed that politicians make use of language as a medium through which they promote, protect and exercise their power and legitimate their voice of authority as well as emphasize on their visions of political order and their associated symbols of social harmony. Thus, political speeches are a significant locus for translating the political manifesto and representations of the reality into words. For example, presidential political speeches have been considered as elaborately composed, edited and scrupulously revised to represent the voice of authority and power of the president who makes that particular speech. However, the speeches have been carefully crafted to make them be heard listened to as the voice of the collectivity. A relevant example is President Obama’s speech when he begins to address the nation by saying” ‘My fellow citizens.’ Such a phrase suggests a feeling of inclusion for the audience. This is contrary to former president Bush who used to address the audience as ‘My fellow Americans.’ It means that Obama recognizes the importance of including all nationalities and ethnicities throughout his addresses, referring a political individual as citizen but Bush chose to address a specific ethnic group or nationality. In their speeches as presidents, therefore, the aspect of authority and inclusivity need to be cautiously managed (Mooney et al. 2010). In his book entitled ‘Language and Politics: How politics permeates language and the vice versa,’ Joseph (2006) argues that the notion of politics is not very much based on the formal political domains such as governments, state institutions or election competitions but focuses more on the workings of power. In this regard, the notion of politics is perceived as power that is operating through the entire domains of life. Joseph considers every act of language as potentially political because of its capability to position a person in a particular way with reference to the hearer or reader. This means that languages are constructed from the practices and beliefs of individuals involved in writing and speaking, indicating that the politics of identity shapes the way people interpret what others say about them and the truth of what is said. Thus, power is basically discussed in questions of disparity or social differences, society and culture. The most fundamental question is to determine how power is related to language. This involves understanding how power is exercised on and through people in their day-to-day tasks of teaching and learning languages, translating and talking to other people (Joseph 2006). 4. Language and the legal system The use of language plays a unique role in any legal system different from how it is generally used in politics. Basically, it is because lawmakers purposely use language to make the law in the same way courts use language pass judgment against the accusers or state their grounds upon which legal decisions are made. This indicates that philosophers of the law must demonstrate a clear philosophical approach to the meaning and use of language. The systematic efforts made to the use of philosophical insights aimed at understanding how language is used to solve problems in accordance with the recent philosophy of law are distinctive mechanisms of modern English-speaking jurisprudence. Too much focus on the effect of legal language in a given context has been cited as one of the instances of the general problem affecting communication. Therefore, philosophers of language have attempted to address this problem by differentiating semantics from pragmatics. They have tried to distinguish between the meaning of a linguistic expression and the effect that is attributed to that particular expression, and by a particular user of a language in given context (Bix 1996). Many studies about courtroom discourse have discovered the power imbalance between the judge and lawyer or witness. It seems that most litigants at different levels of the legal process have not been given adequate time to tell their story and the judges don not understand the real facts presented in their case. Eades (2000, p.161) points out that this troublesome situation occurs in formal courts because of the rules of evidence as well as the management of account-giving through lawyers. However, in informal courts it is due to the fact that judges do not take their time to critically understand the litigants’ stories to the best of litigants’ acceptance as having told all that were expected of them and worth knowing. For example, in Pinkenba case, it was reported that three Australian Aboriginal teenage boys were abducted by six police officers. In this case, teenagers represented the prosecution witnesses but it was discovered that the objective of cross-examination was to weaken the credibility of the witnesses by simply showing that the boys were unreliable and untrustworthy or their story is inconsistent (Eades 2006). This implies that language has been used to construe the reality of what happened in the courtroom discourse between the judges and the boys as prosecution witnesses. Additionally, it can be noted that the role of language legal systems is particularly used in the adversarial legal system, cross-examination and direct examination of cases. Over-presentation of Aboriginal people in police custody and prison has been seen as specific instances of the language and power within the legal context. Similarly, apart from ensuring that Indigenous Australians are addressed with a just and respected social control and protection measures that are appropriate to their specific needs. It has been observed that the Australian criminal justice system performs its function as an alien and discriminator medium of oppression and through which Indigenous people are handled unjustly and subjected to legal procedures that are not favorable to needs. As a result, this group of people is often left to die whilst in their legal custody (McRae et al. 1997). 5. Conclusion Understanding power, persuasion and how people live together is a crucial way of engaging with the language. Acknowledging the significant role for language in establishing and maintaining of power relationships begins with the understanding of how power operates in and through language. It is important for the philosophers of the law to have a clear philosophical approach to the meaning and use of language. Since languages are constructed from the practices and beliefs of individuals involved in writing and speaking, it means that the politics of identity shapes the manner in which individuals interpret what other people say about them and the truth of what is said. Generally, power is discussed in terms of disparity or social differences, society and culture. Gender is embedded in different actions, beliefs, desires and institutions that map the language use in people’s day to day interaction and communication as well as in their establishment of social order. Bibliography Bix, B., 1996, Law, Language and Legal Determinacy, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Cameron, D & Kulick, D., 2003, Language and Sexuality, Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. Eades, D., 2000, “I don't think it's an answer to the question”, Silencing Aboriginal witnesses in court, Language in Society, 29 (2), 161-196. Eckert, P & McConnell-Ginet, S., 2005, Language and Gender, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Fairclough, N. 1992, Language and Power, Longman, London. Joseph, J., 2006, Language and Politics: Chapter 1, How politics permeates language and vice-versa, University of Edinburgh Press, Edinburgh. Retrieved September 21, 2013 from, Linda, T & Shân, W., 1999, Language, Society and Power: An Introduction, Taylor & Francis. McRae, K, Ferretti, T & Amyote, L., 1997, Thematic roles as verb-specific concepts. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12, 137-176. Mooney, A., et al., 2010, Language, Society and Power: An Introduction, Chapter 3, Taylor & Francis. Shitemi N. L., 2009, Language & Gender. IUPUI Fulbright-hays group projects abroad program, Lnaguage and Gender. Trudeau, G., 1994, 'Doonesbury', in ' Exploring Gender: Questions and Implications for English Language Education', J. Sunderland, ed, Prentice Hall, New York. Read More