Hello everyone! This is an essay I wrote as holiday homework, so it would be amazing if you could give me some feedback on what I've written. Thank you so much!!
TOPIC: Australian identity is bound up in our use of informal language
Informal language is a distinguishing feature of the Australian identity. The Australian identity is traditionally defined by cultural values such as mateship, egalitarianism, laid-backness, good-humour, outgoingness, altruism, and authenticity. Informal language, such as colloquialisms, connected speech processes, profanity, and diminutives often exemplify these core values. However, informal language does not always reflect Australian identity but is used in a conscious effort to construct it. It is therefore important to consider context and social purpose when analysing the relationship between Australian identity and informal language. Nevertheless, the importance of informal language to our national identity is undeniable and in some ways, it is possible to see informality as an Australian value in itself.
Australian English has numerous informal lexical and phonological features that reflect a traditional Australian identity. For instance, the colloquial greeting ‘G’ day’ is used in intimate social interactions, but also is famously recognised globally as an Australianism, with Australia’s economic diplomacy programme called ‘G’ day USA’. The name ‘G’ day USA’ represents mateship, a hallmark of Australian culture, achieving the title’s social purpose to aid solidarity and diplomacy between the nations. In fact, informal language, in some ways, is a part of Australian values. This is epitomised by the inherent relaxedness of our very speech, particularly at the broader end of the spectrum, including the ‘loss and modification of sounds’ (Kate Burridge). For example, ‘Good day’ is often elided and instead pronounced like ‘g’ day’. If one were to say ‘Good Day’ phoneme by phoneme, it would sound quite formal, contrived and pretentious, whereas ‘g’ day’ has a friendlier and more down-to-earth feel, reducing social distance between the interlocutors. Furthermore, the informality of Australian English phonology was showcased in a McDonald's campaign last year on Australia Day. They spelt ‘Mc Nuggets’ as ‘Mick Nuggits’, where the phoneme ‘/i/’ is inserted into ‘Mc’ and substituted into ‘Nuggets’. ‘Quarter Pounder’ was spelt as ‘Kworda Pownda’, with the terminal [er] sound in ‘Quarter’ reduced to a ‘schwa’, and the voiceless /t/ assimilated into a voiced /d/ via tipping. Such connected speech processes, characteristic of informal registers, echo the casualness of the conventional Australian identity. However, whilst most Australians found the advertisements amusing, many objected that they were ‘culturally insensitive’ and ‘racist’ for reinforcing stereotypes about the Australian accent. Due to the controversy surrounding celebrating a traditionally ‘bogan’ Australian identity on Australia Day, this campaign was accused of contributing to ‘toxic patriotism’ (Luke Henriques-Gomes). Therefore, whilst some embrace the informality of the broader Australian accent as a part of our identity, it is still stigmatised for its political or socioeconomic associations.
Secondly, in contemporary Australian society, our casual use of profanity reflects our cultural values of mateship and ‘can be a way of asserting a cultural cohesion’ (Linguist Kate Holden). This is most commonly evident amongst young Australian males, who might affectionately use profane vocatives such as ‘bloody bastard’, ‘wanker’ and ‘mad c*nt’ to address their ‘mates’. This promotes a sense of in-group membership and covert prestige, as it reflects their shared ‘young larrikin Australian male’ identity. Often, the interlocutors are not too concerned about affirming each others’ face needs due to the closeness and solidarity of their relationship. However, such profanity is still condemned by many Australians, particularly in the public domain where it may only appeal to a minority of the population. For example, earlier this year, Lebanese Australian Sydney shop owner Yahya Tuameh posted a shop sign reading ‘Open ya sicc c*nts’. The profane vocative ‘c*nts’, the non-standard orthography of ‘sicc’ and the vowel reduced form of ‘you’ enhance the informality of register. This sign received outrage from the public, who were highly offended and demanded the sign be taken down. In contrast, the shop owner and his loyal customers asserted it was ‘as Australian as vegemite’. The noun ‘c*nt’ is highly taboo in other societies, but in such an informal Australian setting, it can signal friendship and good-humour. This, and the controversial nature of the expletive, capture the viewers’ attention, inviting a niche group of most likely younger Australian men of lower socioeconomic status to visit his shop since they feel like ‘one of the gang’ (Linguist Helen E. Ross). Finally, some instances of profanity do not appeal to anybody as they completely violate our nationally shared values. For example, last year in October, Peter Russo received vehement backlash after swearing in parliament, calling a woman a ‘fuckwit’. In contrast to the former usages, the slang compound noun ‘fuckwit’ was derogatorily used to exclude and insult, and therefore breached the Australian cultural values of friendliness, mateship, and in-group solidarity. Such dysphemistic language is highly inappropriate and unprofessional in a formal, official parliamentary setting, especially if used to degrade. This highlights the importance of context and intent in stipulating whether profane informal language builds our national identity or compromises it. Overall, profanity has a special place in Australian discourse, so when it is used as a badge of mateship and inclusion rather than offense, it truly reflects an easygoing, jocular Australian identity.
Although informal Australian English reflects our cultural values, there is often some conscious effort to construct an Australian identity through colloquial English. This is evident in the public domain, where informal language is tactically, if not deceptively, employed by politicians to achieve their vested political motives. For example, in the last election, PM Scott Morrison called coal power ‘fair-dinkum power’. This was clearly an attempt to construct his identity as a ‘true-blue Aussie’ whom the general Australian public could trust; his energy policies were very ‘fair dinkum’, after all - appealing to Australian cultural values like authenticity and genuineness. However, is a politician manipulating the public to vote for them really very fair dinkum- authentic and genuine? From this, it is clear that this use of informal language does not truly reflect Australian identity as it is so clearly a cynical effort to persuade people to vote for him, violating our cultural values. Similarly, the PM has assigned himself the diminutive nickname ‘ScoMo’ to seem friendlier, more down-to-earth and reduce the social distance between himself to achieve his vested political motives. In contrast, the conscious use of informal language can authentically reflect an Australian identity. The hypocorism ‘firie’ resurfaced during the bushfire season earlier this year with the ‘Fund the firies’ slogan used by the Make It Rain campaign. Compared to the neutral noun ‘firefighter’, ‘firie’ is a term of endearment, carrying positive connotations of friendliness and vulnerability. This instills empathy in the hearts of the general Australian public, ultimately persuading them to donate to the ‘Fund the Firies’ cause. In contrast to the PM’s cynical use of Australian colloquialisms and a diminutive, ‘firies’ serves to promote an altruistic cause, thereby supporting cultural values of compassion and selflessness which build up our ‘ideal’ national identity. Therefore, when informal language appeals to our moral cultural values of authenticity, goodwill, and egalitarianism it truly reflects the ideals of our national identity.
In conclusion, informal language is a cornerstone of the Australian identity. This is shown through the informal lexical and phonological features, the use of profanity to build social solidarity and the use of diminutive vocatives which all conform to traditional Australian values of egalitarianism, mateship, and easygoingness. Informal language is also used in formal contexts to consciously construct an Australian identity. Although views on informality in language are disputed, and its appropriateness is highly dependent on context, informality in itself is a distinct feature of what it means to be Australian.