Investigate right!

Reliability

If I were to collect a fair, random sample of Editor's letters found in both male and female aimed magazines I would simply split the two via their intended gender of audience and then select half of my intended total from each pile without reading them. Therefore they should be a fair sample and any anomalies would be very insignificant.

For Brian Cox's tweets I would follow a more strategic path. First I would divide the total of his tweets by the number of tweets I wish for my sample. For an example lets say I wish to find 20 tweets out of a total of 500. 500 divided by 20 equals 25. I would then choose a number at random between 1 and 25, lets say 16 for example. From 16 I would then at 25 and take the tweet represented by that number and continue adding 25 and taking the corresponding tweet until I run out of tweets. I will then end up with a sample of 20 tweets taken purely at random.

The same technique would be used for sampling Michael Gove's comments on education.


Comparability
How far does the language of advertising vary according to the gender of the target audience?

For this investigation I would opt to look at the difference in carbonated drinks. It has been publicized that drinks like Diet Pepsi and Pepsi Max or Diet Coke and Coke Zero are advertised purely for different genders and are both, actually, almost identical. As evidence I would use the product, the adverts and the contents of the drink itself. I believe this would show how language, in multiple formats, is used to appeal to the different genders on carbonated drinks.



How does a 'live' commentary on radio differ from one on television?

This is an investigation that I would breaking into two. Firstly I would investigate the difference in news reports between the two formats from numerous channel/stations. I would, secondly, then look at the statistics between the two so that I would have both linguistic evidence and popular it evidence to compare.


Ethicality

The sample data that I had planned to collect would have been ethical as they would have all have been published as videos, in books or online. It would be reliable as I would have followed the method of fair collection as stated above. In terms of comparability it would lack strength. My data would range from dictionary denotations to the assumed adding of a suffix to a word when trying to speak in an outdated tongue. However, if I could find at least two of each forms then I could compare them together easily.

Ye Olde Transcript

Transcript to Bill Bailey Chaucer Pubbe Gagge

B - Bill Bailey
A- Audience
(.) - Brief pause
(*number*) - *number* seconds pause
(*word*) - action took place
_________ - unheard word



B: This is where the joke ends it's the realm of Geoffrey Chaucer (.) three fellows wenton into a pub-a |and|

A:                                                                                                                                                  |(laughs)|


B: gleefully their hands did rub-a |(.)| in expectation of rubbery fort of the hour that is happy |(2)| great bottles

A:                                          |(laughs)|                                                                           |(laughs)|


B: of wine did the quaff and had a really good laugh (.) until drunkenness held full dominion for tis two for the price of one |(3)| yet after wine and mead and sack man must have a massive snack (.) great pasties from

A:            |(laughs)|                                                                                          


B: Cornwall Scottish eggs shaped like balls |(.)| great hams duck and geese they sucked the bones and

A:                                                           |(laughs)|


B: drank the grease (.) one fellow stood all pale and one for he was a vegetarian |(3)| yet man knoweth a

A:                                                                                                                  |(laughs)|
B: gluttony stoketh the fire of luttery on three young wenches round and sly the fellows cast a wandering eye (.) one did approach with drunken wink hello darlin' you fancy a drink |(.)| soon they caught them on their
A:                                                                                                  |(laughs)|
B: knee it was like some grisly puppetry such was the ludeness and debortury like a sketch by Dick Emry
        |(.)| except Dick Emry is not you _________ so such comparison may not be drawn |(5)| then the
A: |(laughs)|                                                                                                                  |(laughs)|
B: fellows began to pale quail for they were not the friend of ale and in their bellies such confusion and from their throughts vile extrusion (.) stinking foul curruption come spewing forth from drooling lips the fetish stench did fill the pub the very arse of Bill Bezub |(2)| from the throne they were horn to trumpet in the street
A:                                                                  |(laughs)|
B: no coin no stompet homeward bound they must quickly go to that then donkey stole their hands are covered wth vomit greased the donkey was err (.) not pleased |(2)| then through them into a ditch of shite
A:                                                                                       |(laughs)|
B: they all agreed what a brilliant night
A: (laughs into the abyss of time)

Words over time

It is not hard to see that over time Language changes and renews. Similarly, it is not uncommon for society to complain about such change. How often is it that a person negatively states that ‘Language isn’t what it used to be’ or declares a rather biased ‘The younger generation is ruining our language.’ However is it devolution or evolution?

Guy Deutscher, a Language change theorist, said “People have been complaining about decay for millennia, actually, not just centuries” during an interview with American Scientist. So does this conclude that language is forever undergoing change and has not yet faltered to become incomprehensible? He elaborates with “an Egyptian poet some 4,000 years ago who grumbled that things are not what they used to be.” This is truly many millennia of complaint for a tongue that is still being widely used.

This change, however, does not end in the loss of the meanings of out dated words. This was proved in Bill Baileys Chaucer Pubbe Gagge stand-up routine. Whilst he tells his comedic tale he divulges into using outdates lexis and linguistic techniques such as “wenton” and “mead”. Even though it is very unlikely the audience have heard these phrases used before they are still able to understand the connotations behind them and find them humorous, as is seen by their numerous laughs.

Although, on the other hand, Bailey also utilizes the style of adding unnecessary suffixes after simple terms in the form of “pub-a” and “rub-a”. This brings me on whether we should hold onto the language of the past whilst still creating a new form of English.

The creation of a new word is about shaping an old one with a similar denotation or connotation. Jean Aitcheson, another language theorist, summarises this perfectly by stating “These frayed edges must be examined, not snipped away and tidied up.”

As part of human nature we have an urge to explore new things. However this does not ultimately mean that new is good. I agree that examining the frayed edges of words is a positive way forward, but I do not agree that change is always good.

I bring to your attention the word “weird”. Commonly it is misspelt as “wierd” as the author follows the simple rules of “I before E except after C”. Previously this term was spelt simply as “wyrd” and lead no confusing as to the arrangement of the letters involved.

Again, using this evidence for a one sided argument is flawed as it should surely then lead to words like “height” and “weight” to following the same rule of “y”. Forming the words “hyght” and “wyght” would then be a forward progression in language not a reverse progression.

The English language as a whole is not black and white. It is not just forward or backwards. Nor is it a simple yes or no. It is forever adapted and creating itself through slang, outdated words and, quite commonly, the misspelling of words. The English language changes constantly, but it never goes beyond the point of understandlessness. Deutscher sums this up greatly by saying “I wouldn't risk my neck predicting the human race's chances of survival, I can say with 100 percent confidence that if we go down, it won't be because our language has fallen apart.”