U4

Question 1

Jargon quick example

Answer 1

Within the domain of debating, a shared understanding of the jargonistic nouns “adjudicator”, “rebuttal” and noun phrase “affirmative team” is understood by insiders. This jargon builds group identity and creates a sense of solidarity for those who understand the terms.

Question 2

Jargon CBE

Answer 2

For example, Williams Boag Architects (WBa) use jargon from the designing and architectural domain to reflect expertise, knowledge and proficiency. Dense, jargonistic noun phrases such as “the provision of fit-for-purpose design solutions” and “master-planning phase” are used to reflect WBa’s expertise of architecture. WBa create a professional, reassuring persona for their potential clients. Jargon can be used for efficient, effective and precise communication, signalling a shared understanding, expertise and sense of belonging.

Question 3

Discriminatory Language quick example

Answer 3

For example, the use of derogatory, homophobic language such as the nouns ”f*t” and “csucker” are employed to purposefully offend and exclude, demean and diminish based on sexuality. This unacceptable language fosters prejudice and hate towards the individual it is aimed at and the LGBTQIA+ community, further marginalising a group “already in a weak or vulnerable position in society” (Hamilton)

Question 4

Discriminatory Language CBE

Answer 4

For example, (in senate during 2023, paper), Pauline Hanson employed discriminatory language towards Greens senator Mehreen Faruqi, utilising the imperative “piss off back to Pakistan” through a tweet on social media platform X. Here, derogatory and racist language is used in an attempt to belittle and hurt. The dismissive and uncaring nature of the statement is also offensive as it shows that Hanson does not care about Faruqi or her feelings. Hanson aims to exclude by attempting to differentiate herself from Faruqi. While initially not facing many repercussions except online backlash, recently Faruqi has sued Hanson for the discriminatory language.

Question 5

Inclusive/euphemism language quick example

Answer 5

For example, the euphemistic noun phrases “a bun in the oven” for being pregnant, “economically disadvantaged” for being poor and “transfer station” for a landfill are more polite alternatives for terms about taboo topics. This upholds the negative face of the audience.

Question 6

Inclusive language CBE

Answer 6

When speaking about people with disability, inclusive, person-first language such as the noun phrase “person with autism” rather than the disability first “autistic person” is deemed acceptable by the PWDA guide published in 2021. When used appropriately, the ‘correct’ non-discriminatory terminology can make people with disability feel recognised and validated, upholding the positive face needs of the individual and the group. However, some euphemisms such as the adjective “handicapped” and noun phrase “differently abled” had the opposite effect, being viewed as offensive by the PWDA. This language may feel forced or condescending, despite the user’s intentions. Here, euphemistic language breeches negative and positive face needs as people with disability are likely to feel offended, upset and imposed upon.

Question 7

Doublespeak quick example

Answer 7

Language that deliberately attempts to disguise and obscure such as through governmental jargon like “inoperative statement” (lie), “personnel surplus reduction” (fired), “area denial munitions” (landmines) are examples of doublespeak. Such language seeks to increase social distance.

Question 8

Doublespeak CBE

Answer 8

When pushed to address Climate Change and Australia’s responsibility in reducing global emissions in (2024), Shadow Minister Ted O’Brien commented that “The trajectory to any net zero outcome is not linear. The way technology works is there is a long lead time into its development”. Here, somewhat random domain-specific nouns such as “technology”, the nominalised “development” and “commercialisation” are used as well as jargonistic adjective “linear”. Here, doublespeak is used to misinform and purposefully avoid responding to questions or discussing the opposition’s plans. This attempt to obfuscate and confuse listeners allows the Minister to pretend to convey information of substance.