The political correctness debate is one which has been surfacing over the past few years, particularly with certain political figuring bringing this debate to the public platform. Let’s firstly define politically correct language. Political correctness is the avoidance of expressions which may offend, exclude or marginalize certain groups or individuals on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation or disability.

Politically correct (PC) language is a framework used to promote and maintain social harmony. However, PC language can also be viewed to be a hindrance to expression and freedom of speech. The take an individual has on this debate is dependent on the connotations they associate with the phrase “political correctness”. Do they consider political correctness to be a social stabilizer or do they see it as language policing?

On one hand, the use of political correctness helps to confront prejudice in society and reinforce the idea of egalitarianism. This is achieved by slowly weakening the links between certain titles and the social groups they are associated with. This includes terms such as ‘black’, ‘wogs’, ‘curries’, ‘retarded’, ‘spastic’. Using PC terms such as ‘African-American’, ‘from Greek ethnicity’, ‘South-East Asian’ and ‘person with a disability’ are more respectful ways in which to address individuals without using titles which associate them with certain stereotypes or prejudiced thoughts. In particular, using ‘person with a disability’ rather than ‘disabled person’ is a way in which to dilute the link between the individual and the “disability” and to reiterate that the disability is only a single element of many which make up the individual.

While these are the currently accepted, politically correct terms, their appropriateness is likely to change with time. Originally, it was socially acceptable to use terms like ‘retard’, ‘chairman’, ‘policeman’ ‘black’, ‘man up’, ‘mother tongue’. However, with time, values change and society progresses and what is at one point considered socially acceptable becomes politically incorrect as further neutral terms are normalized. Thus, replacements such as, ‘differently abled’, ‘chairperson’, ‘police officer’, ‘African American’ and ‘native language’ are formed. As society continues to progress, these phrases will be outdated and replaced by new, more socially acceptable terms. This consistent cycle is spinning at a more rapid rate with globalization. With globalization, ideologies and values can be shared on wide platforms instantaneously. Through the sharing of ideas, new ideas and perceptions are molded and with this, the language we use to express ourselves also changes and develops.

This rapid evolution in “socially acceptable” language angers the public. Certain PC subtleties are seen by many as unnecessary. The trend towards political correctness is seen to inhibit freedom of expression, restricting individuals from speaking their mind in fear of causing offence. When there is public backlash over the lack of political correctness in a given situation, many individuals find this reaction to be highly excessive and a sign of over-sensitivity of the millennial generation. In an interview with ABC News, former solider stated that, ‘we just seem to bend over backwards for anyone that’s different. It is making Australia a lot softer, it’s making us a big more of a pushover country’.

This frustration of many is further exasperated by the rapid evolvement of normalized accepted terms in society. 

When language used in the public domain borders on politically incorrect, there is a public uproar, in particular, by the younger generation. Donald Trump is a prime example of this and as put by The Atlantic, “the press takes him literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally.” Simply put, the language choices of Donald Trump are strikingly bold; they incite fear and frustration amongst the public, deepening social prejudice through the reinforcement of stereotypes.

However, Trump’s language echoes the frustration of Americans. It is void of obfuscating, complex politically correct language, giving the indication that Trump speaks his mind, hence garnering public support and above all trust. Building trust for a politician is next to impossible, however, when Trump speaks his mind, without fear of causing office to minority groups, he is indeed able to build trust, as he speaks aloud what many think but fear to vocalize.

While this may sound bizarre given the strong global hatred towards Donald Trump, the matter of the fact is that Donald Trump won a majority vote. With a strong following of supporters despite his many controversies, it is important to recognize the power of Trump’s linguistic choices.

We all remember the famous, ‘build a wall’ statement, which became a defining factor of Trump’s presidential campaign. While a highly politically incorrect agenda, which marginalized Mexican people, many people supported Trump’s endeavors. In particular, Americans who were frustrated with their employment conditions are given an excuse to place blame onto a certain group of people. Trump, an influential figures’ use of politically incorrect language to target Mexican’s effectively gave the freedom to others to speak what they had previously restricted themselves from vocalizing for fear of being politically incorrect.

Aside from freedom of speech, the second major issue associated with political correctness is obfuscation. This form of political correctness is institutionalized and because of this here is a genuine danger that the immense emphasis on being politically correct means that often, vital information can be omitted from news scenarios because it targets or potentially targets a certain individual or minority group. As a result, information presented can be bias and incomplete. The 2013 Rotherham child sex abuse scandal in the United Kingdom is a strong example of this. An estimated 1400 children were violated sexually. However, in the media, it was intentionally omitted that the majority of perpetrators were of Pakistani heritage. Similarly, in fear of provoking racial attacks against migrants during refugee resettlement, the German media made an effort to hide that the multiple sexual assaults during the 2016 New Year celebrations were conducted by men of North African or Middle Eastern ethnicity. The omission of such details does avoid marginalizing ethnic groups, but at the cost of significant and rightful information for the public. This tradeoff is one which is still being explored in society as the wave of political correctness is still quite new.

This debate is one which is still raw in society; it is yet to progress and as the world develops, the role PC language plays in our society will become clearer. Will PC language become more prevalent as society focuses more on social inclusion? Or, will the movement towards PC language be restricted due to the black-lash it faces for the shortcomings of this framework of communication?

Examples of Political Correctness:

2017 Australia Day Lamb Ad by Meat and Livestock Co: This company releases an Australia Day lamb ad every year which aims to show a progressive and egalitarian Australian society, celebrating the idea of a politically correct society.

Facebook video by The Line promoting gender equality and challenging the expectations of men and women:

For an overview of English Language, the study design, what’s involved in the exam and more, take a look at our Ultimate Guide to English Language.

What Is a Short Answer Question? 

The English Language exam is split into three sections - Short Answer Questions, Analytical Commentary and an Essay (see here for an explanation of what’s involved in the Essay component). The Short Answer Questions (SAQs) are at the very start of the exam and include 15 marks in total, usually consisting of 3-5 questions that are in response to a text. SAQs are designed to test your knowledge of metalanguage and your ability to elaborate on the situational and social context of the text in a concise manner. 

As SAQs only have 15 marks, you should aim to spend 20-25 mins on this section in the exam. Because there are only about 25 minutes available to allocate to this section, they are also a test of your ability to quickly identify key features in a text. 

The good thing about SAQs is that because there are specific mark allocations for each question, there’s a formula that you can apply to every question to help you obtain all the marks possible - and that’s what we’ll go through in this blog post, so you can ace every SAQ you come across :) 

Common Command Words and What They Mean 

The first thing you should do when approaching an SAQ is to recognise (and even better, highlight) the command words in each question in order to help you understand exactly what is required. 

Here is a list of commonly seen command words and what they entail:

Identify
‍In response to this command word, you should state the example using metalanguage and line numbers.

Describe 
If you are asked to ‘describe’, you should state the example with metalanguage and also give some details about it, such as how it links to the context of the text and/or its functions and social purposes. 

Analyse, comment on, explain, discuss 
‍Now we get to the heavier words that require a lot more elaboration and analysis. For these types of words, you should state the example with metalanguage, describe the immediate impact it creates and then link it to the broader context of the text (whether that be situational or social). So, you can think of these questions as a combination of ‘identify’ and ‘describe’ questions, with a bit of further elaboration attached to them. 

Mark Allocations

SAQs usually range from 1-6 marks each and the way you should answer the question depends on how many marks are available. 

As a general rule of thumb, do as the question says. 

For example, if we look at this question:

‘Give one function of this text. Using appropriate metalanguage, identify two different language features that support this function.’ (3 marks) 

The key phrase here that would distinguish a 2/3 from a 3/3 response is ‘that support this function’. Rather than simply stating two different language features, you should explain how they support the function of the text. It doesn’t have to be long, but at least 1 sentence of elaboration would be required to get full marks.

So, the overall mark allocation for this question is: 

1/3: Stating the function 
2/3: Identifying two language features 
3/3: Linking the language features to the function

A question with a higher mark allocation might be:

‘Using appropriate metalanguage, analyse at least three stylistic and discourse features that contribute to the cohesion of this text. Refer to line numbers in your response.’ (5 marks)

This question has 5 marks, but only one command term (analyse). As such, in response to this question you would have to elaborate on each example - in this case, stylistic and discourse features - and link to how they contribute to the cohesion of the text. 

Each example should be followed by at least 1 sentence that explains how it contributes to the text’s cohesion. You could also link the examples to their social purpose/function if this is relevant. 

As a general rule, any sort of ‘analyse’ or ‘discuss’ question can follow this template: 

1) Identify the example using appropriate metalanguage
2) Describe the immediate effect of that example (e.g. if it creates a humorous effect, if it makes the text hard to understand)
3) Provide further elaboration such as linking to social purpose/function/identity

If you think back to what we covered in the earlier section of this blog, you’ll see that this template follows the rule that higher-order command words (like ‘analyse’ and ‘discuss’) are a combination of ‘identify’ and ‘describe’ questions, with a bit of further elaboration also required.

General Tips

Finally, here are some general tips to keep in mind when answering SAQs:

• Use precise, specific metalanguage (e.g. ‘first-person subject pronoun’ instead of just ‘pronoun’)
• Always link to the broader context for questions with more than 1 mark (whether that be situational or cultural)
• Highlight keywords and/or line numbers to help you avoid silly mistakes
• Always include line numbers when quoting examples 
• If you’re unsure as to how much you are expected to write, the amount of space given to you in the answer section is usually a good indicator. 

For more about how you can boost your marks in English Language, see this blog post about how to extend your skills further.

Language has many uses which go beyond simple communication. Language can be used to entertain, to convey abstract ideas and to mold one’s perspective. A strong understanding of linguistic features, of words and their connotations can allow one to manipulate their language in order to convey certain ideas and thoughts. This brings us to the topic of face needs. One’s face need is the sense of social value that is experienced during social interactions. There are two types of face needs; positive face needs and negative face needs. Positive face refers to the need to feel accepted and liked by others while negative face describes the will to do what one wants to do with freedom and independence.

In daily conversations and in media, language is used to either appeal to face needs or to avoid meeting face needs. Basic politeness markers are frequently used to appeal to face needs, often subconsciously. Imagine a teacher asks you to pass them the pencil they just dropped. Most likely, they will ask something along the lines of, “are you able to pass me that pencil please?” The teacher’s relationship with you is that of an authoritative nature. Therefore, when asked to pick up the pen, you will almost certainly oblige unless there is a compelling reason not to. While the teacher has technically posed a request or a question, it is a in fact a command in disguise. The teacher has an expectation that you will pick up the pen, however, by framing this command as a question, it appears as though you are being given a choice. This appeals to your negative face needs as you are not being imposed upon to pick up the pen, but are given a choice should you wish to “pick it up”. In situations where interlocutors do not have a very close social distance, linguistic features such are politeness markers, rising intonation and interrogative sentences are used to appeal to negative face needs. If this same situation occurred with a friend, they might say something along the lines of ‘oi, chuck us that pen.’ This is a blatant disregard for negative face needs, but due to the close social distance between you and your close friend, appealing to negative face needs for such small things is unnecessary.

Appealing to negative face is most commonly observed in interactions with strangers or with those who do not have a strongly established relationship. However, appeals to negative face needs can also be observed with close individuals, particularly used to further the relationship by extending its boundary. For example, when asking a big favour from a relatively new friend one will most likely use methods to appeal to negative face needs, using phrases such as, ‘do you mind if,’ ‘would it be possible if,’ ‘could I please ask you a huge favour’. Such phrases do not impose of the individual, allowing them to “choose” whether or not to oblige. Appealing to the negative face demonstrates that one recognizes the other’s freedom and wish to do as they wish. 

Appealing to positive face needs occurs through slightly different linguistic and paralinguistic techniques. Compliments, minimal response, eye contact, politeness markers and the use of interrogatives are all ways in which one can appeal to another’s positive face needs. These techniques are very often employed in radio and television interviews. It is the duty of the host to make their guest feel welcome and wanted on the show. Television hosts such as Jimmy Kimmel and Ellen often introduce their celebrity guests by mentioning their achievements, thus making them feel special. They frequently employ interrogatives to display avid interest in their guests. Furthermore, back-channeling and vocal effects such as laughter allow the guests to feel that their presence is welcome and appreciated. Think of this from the perspective host and their social purpose. They want to make their guests feel appreciated to promote their viewership and build solidarity with the guests so they may return on the show.

This is interview is an example of positive face needs where interviewer Rajeev Masand compliments Stanger Things actors Milly Bobby Brown and Noah Schnapp at the beginning of the interview for their show.

‍

Tom Holland on Ellen:

In this example both Tom Holland and Ellen meet one another’s positive face needs. Politically correct language and euphemisms are also another example of appeals to positive face needs. Calling people ‘differently abled’ is done in attempt to avoid discrimination and allow individuals of different abilities to feel equally accepted and welcome. However, this does not always come across as intended. Often politically correct labels are not embraced by the given community as they feel that such labels further alienate them from society. Politically correct labels can act as reminders to such groups that they are considered minority or, they may feel that these labels are a feeble attempt to push aside previous, conflicting history. This is important to note as it demonstrates that appealing to face needs can sometimes be a hit or miss. In everyday conversation, people use cues in attempt to understand the individual they are conversing with and hence alter their language accordingly. They will use these cues to understand how to use language to appeal to the face needs of the other individual. In a context with school friends, there is likely to be less use of politeness markers and politically correct language as the pre-established relationship means there is a mutual understanding the one does not wish to offend. In contrast, the use of language is likely to be very different in transactional conversations, interviews and conversations with an authoritative relationship.

Techniques used to appeal to face needs always come back to the social purpose of the interlocutors and the contextual factors. By understanding the link between these elements, you can form a holistic analysis of face needs. Therefore, when writing about face needs in your exam and sacs, it is vital to be considerate of the context as this impacts how face needs are approached. 

Here are some other examples of celebrity interviews where there is evidence of appeals to positive face needs. Watch them carefully and you’ll notice the specific linguistic features used in these interviews to build solidarity with the guests and create engagement with the show. The hosts compliment their guests and frequently employ minimal response to allow the conversation to progress smoothly. There are minimal overlaps as the hosts are cautious not to talk over their guests. You will notice that in certain interviews, when the host and guest are known to one another, appeals to face needs are not adhered, allowing them to strengthen their bond and further audience engagement.

Malala Yousafzai on Ellen:

‍

Eddie Redmayne interview on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert:

Have a read of our Ultimate Guide to English Language if you haven't already done so!

[Modified Video Transcription]

Prescriptivism Versus Descriptivism - GIF or JIF?

Ever since the inception of the format, we have been arguing with each other over whether we should say 'gif' or 'jif'. This debate has raged both online and offline, but does it really matter? On one side, supporters of 'gif' claim that because the acronym stands for Graphics Interchange Format, the G sound in 'graphics' should be maintained. Whereas the 'jif' camp argues that because the inventor of the format, Steve Wilhite, says 'jif', so should we all. However, a far more sane argument is that as long as what someone says (whether it be 'gif' or 'jif') is understood, it shouldn't matter how they say it. 

As students of English language, we should aim to primarily take this descriptive approach to studying language. We identify and describe what people are saying or writing, and the effects this has, but we don't then ascribe our own judgement. Language exists to be a vessel for our communication, and so, as long as it is transferring meaning between its users, it's serving its purpose. There is no correct way of speaking or writing because there isn't really a good way of determining what this correct way is. 

What Are Prescriptivism and Descriptivism? 

Simply put, prescriptivism is an attitude that prescribes how language should be and how you, as its speaker, must use it. A prescriptivist most often promotes Standard English or a similar variety. This is the variety of English you will find in most textbooks, government letters and notices and in your English classroom. 

Descriptivism on the other hand, is a non-judgemental approach to looking at language. As descriptivists, we place more importance on how English is actually being written and spoken rather than trying to identify a correct way. The vast majority of linguists, dictionaries and other English language authorities consider themselves to be descriptive and not prescriptive, and this is a really important distinction. 

If the way that we as English speakers use or spell a word changes, the dictionary will change too, in order to reflect this. The Macquarie Dictionary made one such change in 2012, which entered the public spotlight. The word 'misogyny' has been used for many years to mean 'an entrenched prejudice against women' and not necessarily 'a hatred of women', as it says in the dictionary. So, when Julia Gillard used the word in her speech on the topic, it seemed to conflict with what it said in the dictionary. Yet, we all knew what she meant. And so, The Macquarie Dictionary updated its entry for the word to better reflect how we actually are using it. That's all well and good in the academic world, but why is this distinction important outside of a video about language? 

Language Prejudice

Throughout history, and still to this day, prejudice exists against people who speak differently.

For example, for much of the 20th century, and to some extent still to this day, Aboriginal Englishes have been deemed substandard and inferior to varieties used by people with European heritage. This has led to demonstrable discrimination in places like courts and hospitals, but often the time and care is not taken to actually interpret what Aboriginal people mean when they speak. By seeing that prescribing how a language ‘should’ be doesn't actually do anything to improve its effect or usefulness, we can be far more accepting of the fact that language varies depending on who is speaking and that it changes with time. 

We have the option of either allowing the people to define how a language is used or allowing a linguistic academy like the Council for German Orthography in Germany, or the French Academy in France, to prescribe how we should speak.

Language Shift

So, where can we find relevant examples in today's society? We're seeing a shift to prescriptive attitudes in the realm of teen-speak and text-speak, with people like David Crystal saying that creating new words and new ways of speaking is a rite of passage for young people. In the rapidly evolving fields of technology, social media or even politics these days, we are seeing new words and phrases and even entire new ways of constructing sentences being coined every day. But, not everyone is accepting of this and plenty of people still cringe when they hear a hashtag used in regular speech. We're also experiencing a shift to the normalization of informal language, Australian slang and hypocorisms, even in social and situational contexts where traditionally we would use a more formal register. Just how many times have we heard the likes of Scott Morrison and Malcolm Turnbull used the phrase ‘fair dinkum’?

But when does this matter in English language? We should be careful not to say that certain ways of speaking or certain varieties of language are inherently wrong and instead, describe what makes them 'non-standard uses' of language. This description is far more interesting than a subjective judgment of a particular way of using English. 

Descriptivism and Prescriptivism as Metalinguistic Tools

The terms descriptivism and prescriptivism can also be good metalinguistic tools when we are analysing opinions about language. Look out for segments on the radio, television or even the opinion columns of newspapers for discussions about varieties of English. People can identify very strongly with certain varieties of language, so a prescriptive attitude can often also indicate other beliefs. This can be important when identifying the social and cultural context of a text. We can also employ this knowledge in our own writing and speaking. Instead of trying to use correct language, we can instead focus on using appropriate language. This doesn't mean that you can start spelling words however you want, and giving your essays a generous sprinkling of commas and apostrophes where they don't belong (because these will often get in the way of you being easily and clearly understood), but the next time you're writing and you see a red line under that word that you're a hundred percent sure is correct, you can be safe in knowing that it's probably the dictionary, and not you, that needs an update.

When it comes to planned, non-spontaneous texts including written discourse and speeches, the manner in which the text is put together can be explained by elements of coherence and cohesion. While spontaneous discourse will also display coherence and cohesion, it is emphasized in planned texts because there is a greater deal of thought and intention behind the use of cohesive ties and devices of coherence.

They can however often be difficult concepts to grasp. For starters, it is essential to understand the difference between the two terms.

Coherence is defined as the quality of being logical, consistent and able to be understood. Imagine coherence as a building (It’s an analogy, go with it).

Cohesion on the other hand refers to the act of forming a whole unit. It is effectively a subset of coherence. Picture cohesion as the bricks and cement which make up the building.

Bricks and cement can be put together to create any form of structure. However, it is only when they are laid together properly that they form a building. Similarly, a text will be cohesive if cohesive ties are used however it will only be coherent if the cohesive ties are used appropriately to create meaning.

You can have cohesion without coherence but you cannot have coherence without cohesion. The picture does not make sense unless the correct pieces are placed in the correct order, even if certain pieces may be the same size and shape.

“I bought some hummus to eat with celery. Green vegetables can boost your metabolism. The Australian Greens is a political party. I couldn’t decide what to wear to the new year’s party.”

In the example above, there are lexical links from one sentence to the next; cohesive ties are used to join the sentences. There is evidence of lexical repetition, ‘green’ ‘party’ and collocations, ‘new years’. 

However, this string of sentences do not make any sense; there is no binding semantic link. This is an example of cohesion without coherence.

‍

Cohesive devices effectively help the discourse flow. They include collocations, lexical repetition, linking adverbials, substitution, ellipsis, conjunctions, synonymy/antonymy, hypernyms/hyponyms and referencing (anaphoric, cataphoric, deictic). These devices create physical links between the words in a discourse.

Coherence which we previously defined as understanding can be achieved through devices such as cohesive ties, formatting techniques, inference, logical ordering of information, semantic patterning and consistency.

These all enhance the ability of a text to be successfully interpreted and understood. Recipes, terms and condition documents, informative brochures all make use of formatting in the form of headings, bolding, underlines etc. to emphasis certain aspects of the text and draw audience attention to the most important elements.

The focus of coherence factors is determined by the social purpose of the text. Is the text made to entertain? Inform? Persuade? Celebrate? If so, why? What is the overarching intention of the text? Answering such questions can help explain the purpose of coherence factors and cohesive devices within a discourse.

This is effectively what you are aiming to do in your analytical commentaries and short answer questions in the exam. Identify the social purposes of the text and use them to explain the role of coherence and cohesion within the discourse.

The other major factor of consideration is the intended audience of the text. Is the text aimed at teenagers? the Australian public? Or specifically to “bogan” Australians? The language choices and ideas implied in the text will reflect the intended audience. If a text is aimed at Victorian’s it may include lexemes such as “Mornington Peninsula” or “Shepparton” which Victorian’s can infer as locations within Victoria, however these terms would need to be further explained to those who reside outside this state. Lexical choices which require outside inference would be included if it can be reasonably interpreted that the intended audience would be aware of their meaning. Finding examples of inference in texts can be useful in identifying the social purpose of the text.

The main thing to be mindful of is that finding cohesive devices and evidence of coherence in texts alone is not enough. You will gain your marks in your exam for linking these fragments of evidence to the wider social purposes of the text.

Have a read of our Ultimate Guide to English Language if you haven't already.

[Video Transcription]

Sometimes when using language we may want to, or need to discuss a topic that is uncomfortable to deal with directly. For these cases we often employ the technique of euphemism to make the bad things sound better. As Quentin Crisp put it, "Euphemisms are unpleasant truths wearing diplomatic cologne".

Semantic Fields and Situational Contexts

Euphemism is found in a wide range of semantic fields and situational contexts, but a few where they appear often include:

• In the domain of politics and political correctness
• In public-facing language, such as press conferences and interviews
• In discussions around uncomfortable topics such as death, termination of employment, and sex
• In the corporate world

So this begs the question of why people sometimes choose to employ euphemism, and what social effects it has on relationships and also society as a whole?

The Purpose of Euphemism

There are two sides to the euphemism coin, which are important to keep in mind when discussing and observing the use of euphemism. On the one hand, it can allow us to talk about uncomfortable topics more easily and without losing face, but on the other it can mask the truth or even be used to actively confuse others.

Many would argue that the primary purpose of euphemism is to maintain positive face, and it can often be very effective in doing so. Let’s consider the example of an employer navigating the social taboo topic of dismissing one of their employees. No matter how they go about broaching this topic, some of the face needs of the employee will not be met. According to a variety of online human resources sites, some of the euphemisms that employers or hiring managers are encouraged to use, include:

• "Exit strategy”
• “Career change opportunity”
• “Freeing for availability to the industry”
• “Making a team move”

These terms are widely favoured over the bluntness of something like “you’re fired”. By using such euphemisms, employers seek to put the focus onto the minor upsides of being laid off, rather than directly dealing with what will often feel like a personal attack for the employee. In this way, they try to, although not necessarily effectively, meet the face needs of both their employee and themselves in navigating this socially taboo topic.

The euphemisms that we use can also reflect and reveal our shifting social mores as the euphemisms that we use change over time. For example, if we consider the words we use surrounding the semantic domain of animal slaughter, we are seeing more and more euphemisms being employed today, as the topic becomes taboo and unpalatable. Instead of “killing” animals, today people are describing animals as being “depopulated” or “harvested”. We can even see this shift in how we describe the deaths of household pets, who are “put down”, rather than “euthanised”. Such euphemisms reflect our society’s shifting values and attitudes, namely that we now value animal life far more than we have in the past. We now wish to avoid the negative connotation surrounding the traditional lexemes of this semantic field, in order to maintain social harmony and positive face.

However, euphemism is also often used to hide or conceal the truth, and can mislead both those who hear it, and even those who use it. Clear communication is sometimes sacrificed for the sake of maintaining one’s positive face. When euphemism is used to obfuscate the truth, it is often classed as “doublespeak”, a term stemming from the neologisms “doublethink” and “newspeak” in Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty Four. For example, local councils may describe a “pot-hole” as a “pavement deficiency” to save face in being unwilling or unable to repair roads. This term is deliberately ambiguous as to the nature of the specific damage, and has been chosen over the far clearer and more familiar term “pot-hole” in an effort to obscure the truth. According to linguist Kate Burridge, euphemisms such as these “tell us how it isn’t”.

Even something as commonplace as life-insurance policies are in reality euphemistic terms for something that really insures one’s death. But insurance agencies and carriers don’t want their product being associated with the social taboo of death, and instead they choose to use the more positively-connoted term “life” to create positive brand recognition. All sorts of euphemisms surround us constantly, and we are often so used to them being used, that we don’t even notice.

Linguist Stephen Pinker describes a “euphemism treadmill”, which is a good metaphor for the way that the connotations of euphemisms can often change over time, as they are used and over-used. The classic example of this process is in the terms used by Nazi officials in the late 1930s and '40s to describe the Holocaust. Initially, the term “Sonderbehandlung” or “special treatment” was used to refer to the summary execution of so-called “unfavourable people”. However, this term quickly became as negatively connoted as the term it was designed to replace among the German people, and so the phrase “die Endlösung der Judenfrage”, “the final solution to the Jewish Question” was formulated - a phrase which again became infamously associated with the atrocities of the Holocaust during the Nuremburg trials. In fact, we’ve observed the overwhelmingly negative connotation of this former euphemism recently in Australia, with Fraser Anning being met with widespread criticism after using this term in the senate. In this example, we can see how over time euphemisms can lose their ameliorating effect as they become more associated with that which they are trying to mask.

Whether you believe that euphemisms are a valuable and useful part of our language, or that they are ambiguous and misleading, their prevalence in our contemporary Australian society make them an important part of a discussion of the evolving semantics of Australian English and of language as a whole.