It's interesting to think that we use particular language in our everyday social interactions but we never really have to think about the identity that the language we are taught are 'normal' to use.
Consider everyone in SOC250's favourite word this week: "Bloody". Wiezerbicka refers to the word as "the great Australian adjective" (Wiezerbicka 2002) but after doing the reading and comparing "bloody" to some of the more popular adjectives used by Australian's in the present day I was starting to question "bloody"'s integrity.
I thought back to a conversation I had with my Mum earlier last week. I am currently really enjoying the Channel 10 TV show production of the movie "Puberty Blues". Set in the 70s, the show is based around teenagers growing up like my parents did. Talking to Mum about the language used back then in comparison to now and really opened me eyes to how much the vernacular individuals use can give insight into their social and cultural identity. One thing that really interested me was the emphasis my mother told me was put on insults and adjectives such as "bloody". Where as today, youth in particular prefer more offensive expressions.
Personally, I don't consider "bloody" offensive, like some other generations would. It is really interesting to see the process of "gentrification" in language and how it is just another process that allows individuals to identify with social and cultural statuses through language.
Wierzbicka, A 2002, ‘Australian cultural scripts –bloody revisited’, Journal of Pragmatics, vol.34, no.1, pp1167-1209.
Firstly, how good is Puberty Blues?!?! It's so great that you used that as a frame of reference. I didn't even think of that but it's actually a really good example of the differing 'slang' of different Australian generations. My personal favourites from the show are, 'd'ya wanna go with me?' and 'd'ya wanna root?' lawwwl. I also think it would be interesting to see if hedging was as apparent then as it is now. Maybe looking at the original movie would give some more insight into this. But either way, great example. Glad to know that there's another Puberty Blues fan in my midst lol.
ReplyDeleteAustralia, the 1960’s: "You're a BLOODY Bum!" I yelled at my Dad. I can't remember why I was angry with him, but I can still remember the taste of Palmolive!
ReplyDeleteI was about seven years old and it was the only time I can remember having my mouth washed out with soap. He understood the context of my use of BLOODY, too bloody well. If I had said, ‘BLOODY’, because I had stubbed my toe, it wouldn’t have been so much of a problem. The issues were around his young daughter using BLOODY as act of protest and rebellion against her Father. He acted swiftly to remind me of my place on the team and to regain face. If I’d been a bloke at the pub, he probably would’ve decked me.
With changing generations often comes a change in the meaning of a word: ‘Gay’ has gone from meaning – ‘happy’ TO ‘homosexual’ TO ‘lame’.
In the case of "BLOODY", the meaning and its’ use appears to be fairly much the same, and it’s certainly in much freer use across the generations but there are still social parameters that "BLOODY" should be careful not to venture across. These boundaries appear to have shifted from the generational to the global, and the shift is more about to whom this word is spoken as opposed to, by whom.
The international tourism campaign, “Where the bloody hell are you?” was designed to promote our bloody awesome country but was pulled, after the overseas market that they were targeting took great offence to the word, (where was Lara Bingle's Dad when we needed him?). Simply put; they did not ‘get it’ and can we blame them? Understanding the context of a word is a very subtle thing and if a word is not in common use in another culture, then why should we expect them to? If the US had been as bombarded with Aussie culture as we have been with theirs, then can I say, “It would have been No Wucking Forries”.