Media Text

YumYummy Mummies Daily Blog 4 U.

Teaching your child to speak the language of ‘Public school’.

Monday 6^th January 2014

As a loving, caring mother myself, I aspire to ensure my children get the best out of their education. I aim to do this by teaching them how to speak the language of POWER. Now before you think I’m crazy, allow me to explain. The public schools in this country have a high level of success due to the way in which their pupils speak. I wish I could send my children to Public school; however, my financial situation could ruin that idea. So, imagine this… we teach our children to speak as if they have just rolled out of Public school.

I know, I know – you live in East London and if your child speaks like a posh totty then they will most definitely get battered. Well they don’t need to speak like pompous, cocky so-and-so’s. Instead they need to learn the techniques. So, that means no slang. Public school students choose to use ‘How do you do?’ and ‘utterly brilliant’ rather than the ‘alright’ and ‘that’s mint’.  It is fair to say some children who were brought up and attended school in East London, for example, may have a different language. The slang used in their everyday conversations boggles many adults – and teachers - alike. But does their choice of language really determine their intelligence? If you really want your child to be accepted into top universities – yes. SO LOWE THE SLANG, BLUDS. Because if you choose to use the ‘bluds, innits, bruvs’ etc., then you are automatically assumed to be thick.

Studies show ‘that 11 members of the elite Russell Group turned more places over to privately-educated pupils in 2011/12’. Then David Lyscom continued to say: ‘public schools invested heavily in teaching the skills needed for university entrance’. So pull up your big girls socks because this is exactly what you’re going to do. These ‘skills’ they speak so fondly of consist of the children omitting the abbreviations, the colloquialisms (slang to you and me) and correct use of negatives – I don’t have no idea what that means. You may want to teach your child to stop with the phrasal verbs.  I’m not saying they should speak like they have something stuck up their bum, but at least they should know how to speak Standard English.

Many children who attend state comprehensive schools are undeniably creative in their spontaneous speech. They use adjectives with negative meaning as words with a positive meaning. For example, ‘that’s sick!’, ‘that’s bad man!’ suggests to older generations that they are describing something revolting – but they’re not! These phrases are used to describe something amazing. Now to me this sounds like they are highly intelligent! Not only are they using simple Standard English but they are using it in a way that no other generation have before – to describe something with a totally different meaning than you would initially think.

But this may be just the public’s opinion. So, unfortunately you still need to work hard to teach your child standardisation.

Linguistic Specialist Jenny Cheshire states that males are more like to use non-grammatical features. In case you don’t know, this means words such as ‘ain’t’ and we ‘was’. Sorry to all the Mothers of boys – you got your work cut out! You know that Universities, Colleges, places of work will not employ a man who says ‘he ain’t got no idea’ so you need to make sure that he ain’t using this grammar no more!

I know you’re stressing out now thinking that you need to send your little mite to Etiquette lessons…

But no need to thank me, I am here to save the day! Researching very basic etiquette phrases that you can slot into every day conversations, could allow your children to pick up on them and start using them too! Here you go:

Please and Thank you          yeah I know, blatantly obvious!

You’re welcome                    kicking ourselves now, aren’t we?

May I                                       This one is crucial, you should encourage them to use this phrase rather than the ‘can I’ that most children have been brought up to use.

I beg your pardon                 This phrase sounds more mature and sophisticated than ‘pardon me’. Your child should never use ‘what’ when asking someone to repeat themselves.

Not only should you encourage your children to adapt these phrases into their language but

you should also discourage the more colloquial (slang) ones. For example:

Yep, yeah, and nope             What’s the need for these? It’s just as easy to say ‘yes and ‘no’ plus you sound much more formal

No Problem                           Based on my research, many professionals, such as University Admission tutors, warn you to steer away from this phrase as it has an abrupt meaning to it. They say you should replace it with you’re welcome.

So there you go! No need to panic, with my fabulous advice, your children should be off to college and University studying for their P.H.D in no time!

Investigation Conclusion and Evaluation

Evaluation

I think that my investigation went pretty well throughout. However, at the beginning I found finding suitable video clips with enough evidence for my investigation quite difficult. Many TV programs that I viewed focused mainly on the students and their conversations rather than the teacher’s language which is what I predominantly needed for my investigation. To improve, I think I could have collected more data with more relevance to my investigation. My methodology could have been improved by being more specific about how long I listened to the clips for and put in the exact time I started listening to the clips. 

Conclusion

Throughout my investigation I found that the unemployed people within ‘Skint’ frequently used grammatical errors. I also found out that their idiolect is a big factor for their grammar as it affects the way they pronounce certain lexis. The graph also shows that the unemployed people use more hedges and fillers as they are less confident with spontaneous speech. However the teachers conjugate lexis such as ‘gonna’ due to the context of them teaching to teenagers. Therefore, they are more likely to adapt to the language of teenagers to create a rapport with them. The teacher uses a lot of connectives as well as the unemployed person but for different reasons. The teacher uses them because of the context of his spontaneous speech. On the other hand, the unemployed people use them to give them time to think about what to say next. My investigation showed that one unemployed person used a wide range of empty adjectives. Therefore, this showed me that there is a contrast in Lakoff’s (1975) theory where she states that women use more empty adjectives than men. The teachers in the Educating Essex transcript show that they use a high level of low frequency lexis. This ties in with the semantics of maths as it is a maths class and therefore the teacher uses a lot of complex lexis to communicate his point. Overall, it shows that the unemployed people use simple syntax when speaking which suggests a low level of education. This may be the reason why they are unable to get a job as they are in a lower social class than the teachers in Educating Essex.

Investigation analysis

Lexis;

Skint;

This clip interviews different people about their daily life being unemployed. Vernon, an unemployed middle-aged man, uses simple words throughout his dialogue. An example would be ‘it’s not nice’. By using the simple adjective ‘nice’ it shows the use of an empty adjective. This contrasts with Lakoff’s (1975) theory that women use more empty adjectives than men. It was in an informal context; therefore this may be why he uses an empty adjective. During the interaction between the interviewer and Vernon, the interviewer shows that they are the powerful participant. For example, he uses the discourse marker of subject change, ‘how much in all do you think you owe’. This shows that they are the most powerful participant because they are controlling the conversation as they want information from the person being interviewed. However, due to the context of this interaction that the interviewer has been hired to asked questions needed for the program. Therefore, this may be why the interviewer shows more power. Also, the interviewer may potentially be in a higher social class than Vernon, and therefore he has access to more complex syntax because of the environment he was brought up in. Julie, an unemployed mother in Birmingham, uses the wrong lexical choice. This is shown when she says ‘definitely get me money’s worth’. She has used the reflexive pronoun when she says ‘me’ instead of the personal possessive pronoun ‘my’. This could suggest that she is uneducated and unable to realise when she has used the wrong pronoun. During the transcript, they use subject specific lexis of the pawn shop. For example, ‘buy backs’, ‘they are stored’ and ‘go on the shop floor’. The context of the interaction shows that Mary is talking to the camera man, therefore this may suggest that she is emphasising the lexis in case the camera man has no knowledge of the shop. This gives evidence that as the unemployed people gain a job, their language changes because of the environment they are in and therefore starts to become more formal and use correct lexis.

Educating Essex;

An underperforming school in Essex is being filmed in a ‘fly on the wall’ style. In the Maths class the teacher used low frequency lexis such as ‘area of a circle’, ‘circumference of a circle formula’. This shows that the teacher has a high level of education. However, he may use more simple lexis depending on the context. He is teaching a year 11 class in a school therefore he will have to use lexis that they will understand rather than what students at degree level may understand. This shows the difference between people with a profession and the unemployed people because the unemployed people do not have a choice of what lexis they can use whereas people with a profession can adapt their language to the context. During the interaction the teacher uses imperatives when speaking to the students. An example would be ‘you’re gonna do’. This shows that the teacher communicates exactly what he wants the class to do. This is also evidence that the teacher is the most powerful participant in the interaction. Relating to power theory, the teacher has instrumental power as he is a teacher and therefore holds the responsibility over the students.  Also, the teacher is male and therefore relating to power theory that males are more powerful than females and therefore has a different lexical choice compared to a female teacher. At certain points in the transcript the teacher uses the lexis ‘guys’. This may suggest that he is trying to change his lexical choice in order to ‘fit in’ with the students. This may be because he wants to build a stronger relationship with the

Students.

 Grammar

Skint;

Throughout the transcript, two unemployed people use a lot of conjunctions. For example, ‘and’ ‘yeah and it come’, ‘and the money come’. This shows that they have to use compound syntax in order to communicate their point because they do not have complex lexis to use in replacement for ‘and’. This may suggest that they have a low level of education because they only use simple lexis. Also, during the interaction they overlap each other when saying ‘and the money come’. This suggests that they do not take part in adjacency pairs. However, because they are taking part in spontaneous speech, and feel under pressure to continue speaking to the camera man, these conjunctions may act as a filler to allow them time to think about what else they can say.

The unemployed family make grammatical errors during their spontaneous speech. An example would be ‘and the money come’. This is an error because they use the present tense verb ‘come’. This is the wrong tense usage and therefore should have been the past tense ‘came’. This shows that they have a low level of education and do not use complex utterances. Also, it could suggest that they also have an idiolect and that the people around them have influenced them to speak in this way. Within the family, the Father is the most powerful participant. This is shown when he says ‘as it was I was owed some money’, by using the pronoun ‘I’ it shows that he does not include his wife in the statement and therefore shows his power over her. Another way of showing that they have a low level of education is when they pronounce certain words. For example ‘appy birfday’ and ‘sayin’. On each of these words, the letter ‘h’ and ‘g’ have been dropped. This may also show their idiolect as it is the way they pronounce the words rather than their misunderstanding of the language. However, Trudgill (1974) states that men use more non-standard English whereas women were the opposite; this transcript shows evidence for this. The language used shows the informality of the context. For example, Julie uses the tag question ‘um five or six quid isn’t it’. This shows that she does not feel the need to use formal language in the situation and therefore does not hesitate to ask the camera man. This could also relate to Lakoff’s (1975) gender theory that women tend to use more tag questions during an interaction than men do. This is because women would rather create a rapport with the recipient whereas men prefer to speak in a competitive way. This relates to Deborah Tannen’s (1990) theory of gender.

Educating Essex;

Throughout the interaction between the students and the teacher, the teacher uses colloquial language. For example, ‘gonna’. This suggests that the teacher may want to feel more comfortable if he uses the same jargon as his students. Therefore, this could suggest that the students feel more comfortable around him and can confide in him. The teacher also uses lexis to clarify his point such as ‘yeah’. This lexical choice always follows an imperative which therefore could suggest that the teacher wants to manipulate the student into agreeing with him. During the transcript the teachers use correct grammar. For example ‘you need to’ shows that he is using the verb ‘need’ followed by the preposition ‘to’ rather than saying ‘needa’ like the unemployed people would say. Therefore, this shows that he has a high level of linguistic understanding and may even be in a high social class as he knows to use correct grammar rather than colloquialism. The teacher uses connectives at the beginning of sentences such as ‘but make some notes’. This may be because of the context of a classroom environment and a student has interrupted him. Therefore, he must continue what he was saying in order to get his point across to the class. The teacher uses an interrogative when speaking to a student. For example, ‘can you do some work’. This shows that he is the powerful participant because it is a demand rather than a question. This is also shown by not following the interrogative with ‘please’ which shows it is a demand. Declaratives are also used when the teacher says ‘I want you’. This shows that the students do not have a choice whether they should do it or not as the powerful speaker has declared that this is what they should do

Investigation

An investigation into the language of a person with a profession, in this case a teacher, and the language of an unemployed person and if it is affected by their social class.

Introduction

An investigation into the language used by a teacher in a classroom environment and the structure of the interaction and compare it to that of a person without a profession and are unemployed. I will analyse the language by investigating the lexis and grammar used within spontaneous speech. I expect to find that the teacher will use more low frequency lexis specific to the lesson in which they are teaching and the complexity of this language, dependant on the level in which it is being taught. I also expect to find that the unemployed people have an idiolect which is more apparent and therefore would use certain words or phrases that are individual to the area in which they were brought up in. The people who are unemployed are more likely to mispronounce words such as the ‘g’ from ‘ing’ words because their language is more informal. Throughout the text I will comment on the different lexis and grammar use of each of the individuals I am investigating and I aim to compare these to each other to conclude the differences between the two. To find my hypothesis, I chose to use two TV shows called Educating Essex and Skint because they are modern TV shows and use modern language. Throughout the analysis, I am going to use theories relating to Lakoff (1975), Tannen (1990) and instrumental and influential power.

My hypothesis; the teacher uses Standard English throughout and they tend to use less hedges or fillers. I expect to find that the teachers use more low frequency lexis and are more formal in discourse whereas the unemployed people use more colloquial language and tend to mispronounce certain words.

Methodology

The data I have collected are 2 different clips from YouTube. These clips are taken from 2 different TV shows that were aired this year; therefore the language is modern, making it more reliable. I chose the TV programs called, Skint (2011) broadcasted on channel 4 and Educating Essex (2011) also aired on channel 4. I chose 2 shows that were broadcasted on the same channel to ensure that it is more reliable in the sense that they are not more advertising focused than any other channel. Therefore, I can analyse the one channel. In total, it took me about 2 hours to collect appropriate clips that would give me enough to analyse. I transcribed the clips which were each 5 minutes long. I started transcribing the clips after the introduction and starting credits. During both clips, I decided not to include the narration over the clips as I felt it wasn’t relevant to my language investigation.

                                                                   

Compulsory Education

Compulsory Education came into effect in 1870 after funding rose to £800,000.

The 3R's

The 3R's in England (Reading, Writing, Arithmetic) came into effect after being mentioned in a toast by Sir William Curtis in 1825.

Standardisation of English Language

The standardisation of the English Language came into effect in the start to mid 19th century. This is when 'rules' came in saying that some grammatical features are more 'correct' than others. However, many argue that Standardisation is always changing.