The Hoop-Petticoat text

The Hoop-petticoat text question about language change:

Similar to other texts that have been written during this time, the title is incredibly long (especially when compared to texts that have been written in the more modern day, for example 'The Great Gatsby', 'Titanic' and 'Harry Potter- The Chamber of Secrets'. 'The Enormous Abomination of the Hoop-Petticoat, as the Fashion Now Is, and Has Been for about These Two Years Fully Display'd:In Some Reflexions Upon it, Humbly Offer'd to the Consideration of Both Sexes; Especially the Female', is the title that has been written at the beginning of the text, the phrase 'The Enormous Abomination' displays a prescriptive attitude and a certainty, however its interesting that this certainty seems to dissolve by the later clause 'Humbly Offer'd' which softens the tone which suggests its more of a proposal (similar to Deborah Tannen's Difference Pairings, orders vs proposals). 'Especially the Female' is the last phrase that the viewers of the pamphlet would read, its possible that the pamphlets would have been given out for free in a department store on the ladies department- therefore the target audience may have been women and by the author favouring women in the text it may have encouraged them to read it.

Although there is no indication that the text was written by a man or a woman, we assume its a man who wrote it because of the period in time in which it was written and the possible presumption that men could only write texts; however the authors name doesn't state whether its male or female, the fact alone that the female sex seems to be favoured in this text is quite unusual during this time- it could be a female who wrote this text and who is trying to convey her opinions about the unfairness of women's fashion in comparison to male fashion. The author says 'upon my honeft word, that I am neither a Quaker, nor a methodift', when she compares a quaker to a methodist they could be comparing groups and possibly the genders. This phrase may be suggesting to the audience that they shouldn't judge what they see (like the cliche 'you shouldn't judge a book by its cover'), this could then imply that we shouldn't assume that this text was written by a male.

'Sweet females',  'daintly' and 'tatlers' are all adjectives and adverbs used to describe females. The word 'tatlers' is less recognised nowadays and has therefore undergone diachronic language change, as this word is most likely never used in modern society (archaic and outdated language). The adverb 'daintly' elicits connotations of something weak and small, connotations such as these can similarly be paired with adjectives for a helpless animal; societys understanding of the equality of the sexes has itself undergone a diachronic change, as during the period in which this text had been written women were possibly more known as the weaker sex and had a less important role in society. The author has also chosen to call women 'the DEAR CREATURES', this patronizing, zoomorphism phrase creates connotations that women are merely possessions of men and something to be looked at and used. However, throughout the text the author describes females with a protective and almost admiring tone, they even mention 'having never been a Woman-hater, but very far from it' possibly creates this idea of the author looking at females only in a sexual way, especially when he later says 'as All who know me can teftify, especially Thofe who live near my ancient Seat in Suffex'- the last phrase creates sexual connotations which then suggests that the text may appeal to a more male audience.

Because this text was written before the introduction of Dr.Johnsons dictionary (1755), there wasn't a standardised way of spelling and writing words during the time in which this text was written in 1745; this is shown in his random use of capitalisation and devoicing the 'f' to a voiceless 's'. Phrases like 'The Fafhion', 'Dimenfions' and 'I well remember Every Body' all show how standardisation wasn't recognised during this period in time. The random capitalisation of words may have been used to bring them to the audiences attention, especially as this text was written for the introduction of a pamphlet which may have been given out for free or found inside a newspaper of that time the author would need his text to stand out compared to the other similar texts during that time. Throughout the text the writer abbreviates some words using apostrophes and deletion; 'lac'd', 'obferv'd', 'expos'd' and 'cock'd' (used in the context 'cock'd up Hats' -the outdated phrase, possibly wouldn't be used in modern society as the word 'cocked' has undergone a semantic shift narrowing its meaning to that of a euphemism, although in some idiolects it may still be used in this way making it a polyseme) are some examples, they seem to replace the letter 'e' with a apostrophe which makes the words seem more colloquial. However, the author also deletes the 'h' from 'this' making it 'tis', this is the only word in which 'h' is deleted from, interestingly this isn't consistent throughout the text and the author sometimes includes the 'h' in this (this enforces the idea that language and punctuation wasn't standardized during the time in which this text was written).

At the start of the text and by indication from the title, it begins in quite a formal tone and register. The colloquialisms in the text are sometimes accompanied with qualifies and most of them are relative clauses (Robin Lakoff typical female speech habits) including phrases like 'no doubt', 'I think' and 'scarce any'. One phrase in particular that stands out is 'This, I think, was in, or about, the Year 1709'; the four commas in this short sentence suggest that this text is more casual than that of a planned and prepared text- which is unusual for a published text as the author would have known that a variety of readers would be reading this pamphlet, it could possibly suggest that this isn't the first text that the author has written to be published and that they are an experienced writer (possibly in the same lexical field as this text).  The small phrases created from the commas enforce the idea that this is a colloquial text, the author seems to just be writing their opinions and thoughts down (Jennifer Coates and Deborah Jones 'Scandal theory') about fashion during this time and possibly aim to persuade others to think the same (using their influential power as well as possibly converging their language to that of their target audience so that they can understand and relate to it). This is similar to the techniques bloggers use in modern society to convey their thoughts and ramblings across to the world through mass communication and social media. The Plain English Campaign is a modern organization which aims to make texts simpler to read so that a greater variety of audiences can understand them, documents are marked with the 'crystal mark' to show that this campaign has approved this text; however as the author of this text has used more colloquial phrases and has simplified their language it makes it easier for a wider audience to read and understand the text (the writer may have done this to appeal to a wider variety of audiences as they are unsure of who will receive the pamphlet).

synchronic language change

Synchronic language change:

Political correctness

The avoidance of forms of expression or action that can exclude or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.

The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis (how what you say changes views) is a widely accepted part of this theory.  The language we use affects not just the messages we communicate, but the ways that we think and act. 

The problem arises when the linguistic constructs we use influence our way of thinking in negative ways; these negative influences from language can be called politically incorrect.

1. Subtle:  Words like policeman, mailman, fireman; referring to all people as man; referring to an individual as he.  These exclusionary words subtly influence our way of thinking.  The first three imply that these are roles for men only.  This kind of language can keep women from being comfortable aspiring to these positions.  The other general references of man and he are simply inaccurate and unnecessarily exclusionary.  They imply that masculinity is the default and superior gender trait.

2.      Offensive:  Words like gay or retarded to refer to something undesirable; words like fag or retard to refer to people.  The first set shows how these descriptions inherently link certain types of individuals to anything bad by using terms that refer to them as insults for other undesirable concepts.  The second set is offensive because of the pejorative connotations implied by these slurs.  There are appropriate ways of referring to individuals that does not unnecessarily demean them.

3. Blatant: The n-word to refer to black people or the c-word or b-word to refer to women.  This type needs little explanation.  These words are highly offensive and indicate a great deal of disdain.  They objectify and belittle entire groups of people based on one trait.

However there is the concept that people should be allowed to use almost any kind of language that they want to, up to a certain point.

Plain English campaign

A group that campaigns against gobbledeygook, jargon and misleading public information, their aim is to make English as plain as possible so it can be clearly understood by everyone.

The Crystal Mark

They are recognised by their ‘crystal mark’ which now appears on more than 21,000 documents worldwide. It is basically a symbol to show that the Plain English Campaign approves the documents.

Dog-Whistle Politics

Dog-whistle politics is political messaging using coded language that means one thing to the general population but has an additional, different or more specific meaning for a targeted subgroup. The phrase is often used as a pejorative because of the deceptive nature.

World Englishes

The many and varied dialects of English spoken in different parts of the world, including not only American and British English, but such varieties as Indian, Pakistani, Australian, and New Zealand English, as well as the English spoken in various African and Asian countries (English accents and idiolects). English was brought here because of the colonial period but now they all have independence and in other places English has been encouraged because of its widespread use as global communication.

Why language is changing:

• Because of the new influences that we now have including things like social media, celebrities ect.
• Social group influences and reputations and ideals (cultural environment- converging language)
• Foreign influences – migration/movement
• Standardisation
• Borrowing language from other languages
• Social prestige (changing our language depending on what we are doing and who we are speaking to- may converge or diverge our language)
• Semantic changes: narrowing, borrowing, amelioration, pejoration ect
• Syntactic change (the evolution of the syntactic structure of a natural language- naturally evolving language)

Accents and dialects:

Prescriptive attitudes:

Schools now are trying to cause children’s language to ‘evolve’ by trying to reduce the amount of regional language and dialects in their language and instead try and encourage the use of Standard English which is a prestige dialect. Some slang like ‘coz’ and ‘aint’ (dialectal words) are banned from these environments as some believe that it can sometimes create a negative impression. However, some people think that we need to adapt our language and use Standard English in specific environments like interviews to give a more positive impression. If we converge our language it will create a larger sense of success. This is using ideas on synchronic language change, we are now banning language and only starting to see the huge social value of speaking ‘properly’ and are adapting our language to use it more.

Quotes:

• Ongar Academy says it’s not banning words, but “evolving” its pupils’ speech and “may not favourably reflect on them when they attend college and job interviews”
• Bidialectalism: facility in using two dialects of the same language; and the teaching of Standard English to pupils who normally use a nonstandard dialect.

Descriptive attitudes:

Regional dialects are part of a person’s identity and connect us to a community as well as towards our self-image. There also those that argue in some environments we are required to use social dialects in order to fit in and participate with classroom discussions; this idea is encouraging people to use slang, colloquialisms in our idiolect as this makes us who we are. People who use slang and common dialectal words are diverging their language to stand out and be different as well as to fit in with the socialect and connect with those around them. Descriptivist David Almond writes about how slang is part of our identity and we shouldn’t be ashamed of it, one of his articles in particular he wrote only using slang, phonetic sounds and substitution of words (similar to CLA theorists Bruner and Vygotsky idea about social interaction and how children’s language changes depending on what we hear) language to portray his ideas. Descriptivist’s incorporate more diachronic language change ideas because the change of regional soicalects and slang has been happening over a long period of time and the amount of colloquialisms we use (depending on our environment) is slowly increasing with each generation.

Quotes:

• James Sledd: “To use slang is to deny allegiance to the existing order … by refusing even the words which represent convention and signal status.”
• Sociolinguist Julia Snell: “to learn and develop, children must participate actively in classroom discussion; they must think out loud, answer and ask questions”
• Idiosyncrasy: a mode of behaviour or thought particular to that individual and communicating with someone on their level – speaking in slang/socialect/colloquialisms (similar to using diminutive forms to speak to children e.g. ‘doggie’, Bruner’s interactional theory and Vygotsky’s ZPD theory.
•