Peculiarities of regional varieties of the English language in newspapers in English-speaking countries
- Тип работы:
- Иностранные языки и языкознание
Узнать стоимость новой
Детальная информация о работе
Выдержка из работы
Ministry of Education and Science of Russian Federation
North Caucasus State Technical University
Linguistics, Intercultural Communication and Tourism Department
Course Project on Lexicology:
Peculiarities of regional varieties of the English language in newspapers in English-speaking countries
Written by Bogdan Selenginskiy
Supervised by D.K. Novikova
1. English language: history and dialects
1.1 Language Variant or Dialect
1.2 Standard English
2. Analyzes of English-speaking countries' newspapers
Despite all investigations in the sphere of regional differences of English language and all the scientists' works, devoted to the problem, the question about regional varieties is still open and demands further investigation. But it seems that it’s time to dot the i`s and cross the t`s. In the written work we are intended to give a brief characteristic of some varieties of the English language.
Scientists divide the language into tens of different segments according to social strata of a speaker, gender and many others. In the written work the only division which is valuable for the research is the areal one. Almost all the learners of the English language are acknowledged with the phenomenon. Some of them can even enumerate some of these differences in vocabulary and spelling. But our research is based on the point of view, according to which this division is useless for translators and interpreters as leaners of foreign language.
Facing new and new differences one must just learn them by heart like areal-bound synonyms, variants, and no other way. Thus having no possibility to deny this areal division we’ve taken an attempt to divide the «varieties» from the other point of view. It is not a secret that a translator and especially an interpreter must be short-spoken informative and easy to understand. These are general features that client demands. So before one becomes an interpreter they study a lot and they need good example of speech patterns to gain experience of good speech-producing. We believe of course that high-brows' speeches and masterpieces of literature are immortal and flawless, but this patterns are too far from the aim of being easy understood.
Well considering the all above we believe that the material for building of the language skills must be wide-spread and actual, it leads us to the newspapers. And here we are to face with the stereotypes: the American are too expressive, the English are too strait-laced and so on. And to find the most informative and easy-to-understand language variant in our research we’ve compared pieces of articles in order to find out the percentage of non-informative in business communication units they are stylistics devices such as metaphor and euphemisms. They are acceptable for this genre but as our work is intended to help learners, whose dominate preferences is tempo and clarity we consider them as rubbish in the context. But slang expressions are useful and it stands to reason because the one who is not master of metaphor easily can be professional in Brookline slang.
Thus we can formulate the object of the work which is the vocabularies of the English language varieties in newspapers' articles.
The subject is specified language phenomena and their unimportance.
The aim of the work is to demonstrate the areal newspaper among English-speaking countries which is the most valuable example according our arguments.
The aim of the work has determined following tasks:
1. Find out differences between the «varieties» of the English language and «dialects».
2. Find out the «start point», what is the Standard English.
3. Find the differences and the stylistic devices in the newspapers.
4. Give them evaluation and decide are they significant enough to consider them a criterion for making the «areal» choice.
Thus we have introduced the problem, its object and subject, the way of its investigation.
I. English language: history and dialects
1.1 Language Variant or Dialect
In fact the English-speaking area is unbelievable vast: it is the first spoken language of such countries as The United States of America, The United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, South Africa. Such a range of territories and peoples leads to creating several big dialects, which were isolated. As the Internet came into our life the etymological differences began being erased via communication and be united into one big essential and actual vocabulary, which is used. Traditionally the RP was such a container for the rules and «the best» words. Probably it still remains for some proud highbrows and members of Royal family. Nevertheless the division between the «varieties» exists and to describe it we must provide different definitions of the term and compare them.
First of all we decided to present the Russian point of view. According to Ginzburg: «variants of a language are regional varieties of a standard literary language characterised by some minor peculiarities in the sound system, vocabulary and grammar and by their own literary norms» [12: 200]. The definition is lack of logic, because with such way of considering the things we need to outline almost so many varieties of Russian language as many cities the RF has: «regional varieties of a standard literary language characterised by some minor peculiarities in the sound system» they are Stavropol «Гэ», Moscow «A», Vologda «O» and so on. Furthermore saying «their own literary norms» the scientist it seems did not realize that almost every country has more than one literary school with its preferences and the result of following the Ginzburg’s definition is shown above. We should also say that there is a definition of another phenomenon, it says: «dialects are varieties of a language used as a means of oral communication in small localities, they are set off (more or less sharply) from other varieties by some distinctive features of pronunciation, grammar and vocabulary» [12: 201]. So it proves our idea: the varieties of the English language can be denied and be considered as dialects, another disadvantage of the definition is the term «small localities» because in this case the UK is small locality while the USA and India big ones.
Another Russian scientist, who tried to shed some light upon the problem, was Arnold. The opinion of the scientist is as follows: «local dialects are varieties of the English language peculiar to some districts and having no normalised literary form» [11: 262]. It means if a district has literary norm its total sum of peculiarities can be considered as «variety», we can prove the idea through the next definition by Arnold: «regional varieties possessing a literary form are called variants» [11: 262]. Taking into account the globalization and level of the education we can suppose a scenario where more and more authors from different countries can create their works in English creating the kind of literary norm and new and new variants of English what can really overload the lexicology and so on.
Now having acquainted with the Russian scientists' points of view and found them as improbable we can analyze some foreign works.
The way of defining the differences in foreign works is more «smooth» and more accurate. Among all the scientists the most successful definition was introduced by Schneider, who says: «the neutral term that has come to be used normally for such group specific language forms is „a variety.“ Any set of language habits that is shared by a certain group of speakers for use in certain contexts constitutes such a variety» [7: 15]. His definition was not careless but just the opposite, he uses such qualities as «neutral term», and he doesn’t point out what are the specified different features: «set of language habits», such a way is not very accurate and defined but at least error-free one.
The authors point of view is «shrewd» in a way and moreover almost correlates with our position because: «the term is closely related to that of a „dialect,“ which also denotes a language form associated with a certain group of people but is usually associated with a given region (hence a „regional dialect“) or a social class or group (a „social dialect“)» [7: 15]. It means that the authors still divides two terms «dialect» and «variety» but the thin boundary between them allows us as we think consider for example American English as dialect but not as variety from the point of view. Another achievement of the definition is binding the areal dialect or variety not to an area but to the people: «a certain group of people». It is important because a British servant even living in the USA can save up his domestic peculiarities. And even more, the author make a remark, a very notional one: «but is usually associated with a given region».
Thus we can see the usage of the point of view, presented by foreign scientists: it is not rush and narrow one as definitions presented by our scholars. So having presented several points of view we can say that the language variant has some specific features such as: «specific language forms» and a group or an area which uses them. But to find the differences we need to find out some start point.
1.2 Standard English
«We need to know Standard English, but we need to know it critically, analytically, and in the context of language history. We also need to understand the regularity of nonstandard variants. If we approach good and bad grammar in this way, the study of language will be a liberating factor--not merely freeing learners from socially stigmatized usage by replacing that usage with new linguistic manners, but educating people in what language and linguistic manners are all about.» [2: 45].
«[Standard English is that] particular variety of English which is regarded by educated people as appropriate for most types of public discourse, including most broadcasting, almost all publication, and virtually all conversation with anyone other than intimates…» [4: 51].
«Standard English is not entirely uniform around the globe: for example, American users of standard English say first floor and I’ve just gotten a letter and write center and color, while British users say ground floor and I’ve just got a letter and write centre and colour. But these regional differences are few in comparison with the very high degree of agreement about which forms should count as standard. Nevertheless, standard English, like all living languages, changes over time» [3: 41].
«It is important to realize that standard English is in no way intrinsically superior to any other variety of English: in particular, it is not 'more logical,' 'more grammatical,' or 'more expressive.' It is, at bottom, a convenience: the use of a single agreed standard form, learned by speakers everywhere, minimizes uncertainty, confusion, misunderstanding and communicative difficulty generally» [8: 72].
And this start point can be so-called Standard English SE as well. To determine what is it and what its features we used web sites. According to numerous Russian web sites we’ve found out the follows definition: «standard English — the official language of Great Britain taught at schools and universities, used by the press, the radio and the television and spoken by educated people may be defined as that form of English which is current and literary, substantially uniform and recognized as acceptable wherever English is spoken or understood» [3: 41]. Is stands too far from science, but still some points are unquestionable for example: «official language of Great Britain» it really is, the statement that it is «recognized as acceptable wherever English is spoken or understood» [6: 223] is not wrong too, but today English is understood in the most part of the globe and under the concept «is understood» we mean any combinations of English-like-sound «words» which provide communication. It means that in India or in South Africa the English language «is spoken and understood» we deal with Standard English. As we know that it is wrong we can’t accept the definition. Though in the further description of Standard English we can find some remarks: «its vocabulary is contrasted to dialect words or dialectisms belonging to various local dialects» (Trask R. L., 2000: 52). So the Indian English because of the «dialectisms» can’t be considered as Standard, but there is no explanation of evaluation the «dialectisms» within the Great Britain, another weak point of the definition. And finally we can find wrong statement about dialect and language variant such as: «local dialects are varieties of the English language peculiar to some districts and having no normalized literary form. Regional varieties possessing a literary form are called variants» [4: 78]. We’ve paid a lot of attention to this difference and it seems there is no need to go back to our arguments. This is the content of many essays and it is the same in many works, unfortunately we couldn’t determine its origin but it’s obvious that it is taken from one and the same book.
Having found the previous definition as unsatisfying we analyzed the material from Bad Language, suggested it as more reliable source. Their article is as follows: «Standard English (often shortened to S.E. within linguistic circles) refers to whatever form of the English language is accepted as a national norm in an Anglophone country. It encompasses grammar, vocabulary, and spelling. In the British Isles, particularly in England and Wales, it is often associated with the „Received Pronunciation“ accent, also known as Queen’s English. In the United States it is generally associated with the „General American“ accent, and in Australia with General Australian. Unlike the case of other standard languages, however, there is no official or central regulating body defining Standard English» [2: 75]. It is quite informative and as usual native speakers provided more valuable information. The first difference is determining the Standard English as «national norm in an Anglophone country», thus the author accepts that Standard Language can belong not only to the Great Britain and it is reasonable from the one point of view: there is a country which uses this language as official and it is no doubt standard for them, the laws, the literature, everyone goes along with these norms. But from another point of view in such a way we don’t have a start point to determine deviations and variants. So if every English is the Standard English we should consider this as a paradox and give up this point of view, or neglect the regional division and consider it just wide set of rules which a rather flexible and can satisfy peoples from different countries.
The problems of point of views of two previous web sites left the question opened, but another source, devoted to the problem we find as proper and want to present it with the analyses. The article begins from the origins of the Standard English: «By far the most influential factor in the rise of Standard English was the importance of London as the capital of England. London English took as well as gave. It began as a Southern and ended as a Midland dialect. By the 15th century there had come to prevail in the East Midlands a fairly uniform dialect, and the language of London agrees in all important respects with it. We can hardly doubt that the importance of the eastern counties is largely responsible for this change. Even such Northern characteristics as are found in the standard speech seem to have entered by way of these counties. The history of Standard English is almost a history of London English.» [1: 172].
It explains why we should consider the British English as standard through the history. But the question is still open: «half-way through the 17th century, the lexicographer Thomas Blount declares that the 'Babel' of the vernacular made England a 'self-stranger' nation--one growing alien to itself through this diversity of available forms. He dedicates his dictionary of 1656 to the cause of having 'English Englished.' Arguably, in this context it is not the rise of a standard variety of language, but a new awareness of dialect and variability of discourse — the 'self-stranger' English of the Renaissance — that best defines the linguistic culture of early modern England [6: 62].
And the final accord was in the end of the article: «[T]here is no such thing (at present) as a Standard English which is not British or American or Australian, etc. There is no International Standard (yet), in the sense that publishers cannot currently aim at a standard which is not locally bound.» [5: 23].
Thus we can give up the search of standard English due to its declination to the International Standard, which is not bound to any country.
english language dialect newspaper
2. Analyzes of English-speaking countries' newspapers
Well, we’ve described the question of choice between dialect and variety and also touched upon question of Standard English. Thus we’ve taken extracts of newspapers of English-speaking countries and gave them analyzes of the important qualities such as information capability. The criterion was evaluated according such rates ac metaphors, euphemisms, and slang expressions, which was considered as useful.
We’ve divided the materials into three blocks in order to emphasize the achieved characteristics: the UK, the US, Canada.
The UK newspaper the Telegraph:
David Cameron faces mutiny over NHS climb down
David Cameron will today be forced to appeal for help from his newest MPs to head off a backbench revolt over his watered down health reforms.
In the face of Liberal Democrat opposition to his proposed shake-up of the NHS, the Prime Minister ordered a time-out so the views of doctors and nurses could be heard.
Today, a report by the group NHS Future Forum, led by former chairman of the Royal College of GPs Prof Steve Field, will be published and is expected to recommend a string of changes.
The Liberal Democrats claimed yesterday that the concessions they had demanded had been achieved, while backbench Tories were warning that Mr Cameron had given too much away.
Mark Pritchard MP, secretary of the 1922 committee of backbench Tory MPs, suggested that the changes would lose the Tories votes.
He told The Daily Telegraph: «History may judge this moment as a lost golden opportunity to make the NHS fit for the 21st century.
«For the discerning voter, and politically, it may be a case of 'a plague on both their houses'. NHS reforms are needed. The status quo will not deliver improved patient outcomes or improved value for hard-pressed taxpayers. «
Mr Cameron has called an emergency meeting of all 143 Tories who joined the Commons at last year’s election.
It is being interpreted in Westminster as an attempt to ensure Mr Cameron has enough support to see off opposition from «old guard» MPs, who have been angered at concessions to the Tories' Coalition partners and perceived «gloating» from Lib Dems.
Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, will tell his MPs tonight the Lib Dems have won. They believe they have secured virtually all of the concessions demanded of Mr Clegg at the party’s spring conference in Sheffield, such as limiting the scale of competition in the health service by private providers.
Mr Clegg will say at the special meeting: «We have achieved what we set out to achieve. It is a job well done.» Former Liberal Democrat leader Lord Ashdown said Mr Clegg had «played a blinder on this».
Prof Field is expected to warn that the NHS must remain free from day-to-day politics, while ensuring the Health Secretary must remain ultimately in charge.
That will be seen as an implied criticism of Andrew Lansley, whose reforms would have taken responsibility away from his own office. Mr Lansley has come under severe pressure following his proposals.
Prof Field is likely to criticise the reforms, as they were drafted, which led to a widespread fear among professionals that the plans would not deliver the change and positive results people wanted for the NHS.
The original Health and Social Care Bill had proposed scrapping two tiers of management within the NHS and handing the power to buy Ј60?billion a year of treatment to new groups led by GPs, called commissioning consortia.
They would have been able to choose either private or state-run hospitals for treatment and a powerful new economic regulator, Monitor, would have had the power to fine providers accused of colluding with doctors in «cartels».
But the Government decided to call a halt to the plans amid fears from the medical profession and some Lib Dems that this system would lead to the backdoor privatisation of the NHS, as well as fragmenting service.
The Future Forum, which has reviewed the plans, will instead insist that Monitor supports collaboration and integrated care with the help of a central body called the NHS Commissioning Board.
It will also place more emphasis on patients, who were largely ignored in the original legislation, by giving them greater rights to choose treatments and to challenge the way services are provided locally.
The experts will call for a relaxation of the 2013 deadline for consortia to replace primary care trusts, and may also say that a 2014 target for all hospitals to become semi-independent foundation trusts should be scrapped.
This would be intended to ensure their priorities are not skewed by trying to balance their books at all costs, but would be widely seen as a tacit admission that many hospitals are financially unviable.
Downing Street sources said the meeting had been in the Prime Minister’s diary for «a long time», and had not been called simply to address the health reforms.
But backbench Conservative MPs were heavily critical of what they described as Mr Cameron’s «divide and rule» approach to winning support for the reforms.
One senior MP described it as a «last-minute panic meeting».
He said: «They are trying to get the new intake and A-listers to do them a favour and offer the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister their support. «
Another MP added: «If this is a 'divide and rule' strategy it is most unwise. «
Analyzes: this article consists of 800 words. Here we’ve got 14 units of interest, they are:
mutiny — metaphor
climbdown — slang expression
revolt — metaphor
shake-up — metaphor
string of changes — metaphor
golden opportunity — metaphor
plague — metaphor
old guard — metaphor
gloating — metaphor
cartels — metaphor
skewed — metaphor
balance — metaphor
divide and rule — metaphor
As a conclusion we’ve brought some statistic: in British politics-orientated article there is 1. 625% of potential communication breakdown’s reasons — metaphors and 0. 125% useful «out-of-rule» information — slang expression.
The US newspaper the Wall Street Journal:
ISTANBUL--Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan scored a landslide victory in parliamentary elections Sunday but failed to gain enough seats to rewrite the country’s constitution alone, according to unofficial results.
As voting begins in Turkish elections, Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan is to set to win a third consecutive term in office. Video courtesy Reuters.
Mr. Erdogan’s Islamic-leaning Justice and Development Party, or AKP, won 50% of all votes cast, against 26% for its nearest rival, the Republican People’s Party, according to unofficial results from the Cihan news agency, working with Turkey’s national election board.
If correct, that would confirm Mr. Erdogan’s unrivalled position on Turkey’s political scene and create momentum for him to carry through his goal of redrafting the constitution, political analysts said.
Mr. Erdogan could also press to change Turkey into a presidential republic, as he has said he wants to do, although he would now need to secure some support outside his party. Such a move would potentially see him rule this strategically important Muslim nation of 75 million people until 2024, were he to win presidential elections due in 2014 and serve out two terms.
But on Sunday night, as he spoke to a cheering, flag waving crowd of supporters in Ankara, Mr. Erdogan sought to send out a conciliatory message to the 50% of Turks who voted against him.
«We will be more moderate in the next period,» he said, calling on all sides of the political debate to put behind them what had been at times a dirty and violent election campaign. «The nation gave us a message to make a new constitution by consensus. «
An AKP victory had been widely expected, not least because the economy grew 8. 9% last year in a remarkable recovery from the global downturn. Mr. Erdogan’s high international profile, expansive foreign policies and tough stance towards Israel also proved popular among voters.
«The fact that after eight years in power they could win even within a few percentage points of what they gained in 2007 is an extraordinary victory by any standards. This is a landslide,» said Soli Ozel, a prominent Turkish columnist and political analyst. The AKP won 47% of the vote in 2007, and 34% in 2002.
The campaign was hard fought as Mr. Erdogan sought to secure enough votes to give him the 330 seats out of 550 in parliament that he needs to be able to rewrite the constitution without support from other parties, and put it to a popular referendum for approval.
That’s a potentially divisive goal in a nation deeply split over the proper role of Islam in society. The potential for political turmoil had worried some investors already concerned that Turkey’s economy may be overheating and in need of urgent government action to cool it.
But on Sunday Mr. Erdogan promised to negotiate the new constitution with opposition parties and to consult with academics and the media. The new constitution would be «built entirely on civil liberties,» he said, in apparent response to critics who accuse him of authoritarian tendencies and of crushing press freedoms.
The Cihan agency said the AKP would get 326 seats in the new parliament.
Critically, the nationalist National Movement Party, or MHP, looked set to make it back into parliament, clearing a 10% threshold. Had the MHP fallen below the threshold, its votes would have been redistributed to the two main parties, putting the AKP comfortably above 330 seats.
On Sunday night, MHP deputy chairman Faruk Bal accused the AKP of «dirty tricks» during the campaign, which he said had affected the result. Ten senior MHP members were forced to resign last month, after sex tapes in which some of them featured were released on the internet. Mr. Erdogan has denied any AKP involvement.
The AKP lost a limited number of votes in Kurdish areas to the Kurdish Peace and Democracy Party, or BDP, likely as a result of Mr. Erdogan’s decision to court nationalist voters by taking a harder line on the country’s Kurdish problem.
Turkey’s constitution remains widely associated with an era of so-called «military tutelage,» in which Turkish governments were elected but had limited freedom to act, with the possibility of a further coup always present.
An elderly Turkish woman casts her ballot in Yayladagi, Turkey, near the Syrian border.
At the same time, several candidates currently awaiting trial on charges of being members of a terrorist conspiracy to topple the government, looked set to get seats in parliament based on the unofficial results, apparently winning a sympathy vote.
The Republican Peoples Party says the trials, which include hundreds of defendants from army generals to journalists, amount to a political witch hunt. Among the defendants who appear to have won parliamentary seats were a journalist and a university professor.
overheating — metaphor
cool — metaphor
crushing — metaphor
dirty tricks — metaphor
military tutelage — metaphor
witch hunt — metaphor
This extract also contains 800 words. But the situation here is quite different. Here only 6 units which are considered as objects of interest, and all of them are metaphors. But percentage is lower and is equal 0. 75%.
The Canadian newspaper Embassy:
Minister’s NDP attack highlights new trade reality
In his first public address since being named international trade minister, Ed Fast launched a sharp partisan attack on the new Official Opposition on June 2, describing the NDP as an anti-free-trade party with outdated policies that threaten economic growth.
Similar in tone to the heated, partisan rhetoric that marked seven years of minority government in Ottawa, not to mention the recent election campaign, the comments could be easily dismissed as just more of the same.
However, after decades in which the two main parties--the Liberals and Conservatives--have shared largely the same views on trade policy, experts say Mr. Fast’s speech to dozens of Canadian business representatives highlights the new political reality in Canada, centred around two parties with completely divergent views on what is best for the country.
But while some say the minister’s comments constituted a recognition that the NDP’s trade stance offers Canadians a viable alternative, particularly if the government’s free-trade agenda hurts instead of helps, others say the true message is that the new opposition needs to rethink its protectionist policies.
Mr. Fast delivered his speech in Ottawa during the opening of International Trade Day, an event organized by Canadian Chamber of Commerce. He repeatedly emphasized his government’s commitment to the free-trade agenda. He boasted his party’s previously-signed free trade agreements, while also listing ongoing negotiations with the European Union and India.
Although the minister will have an easy time passing trade legislation through the House of Commons due to the strong majority his government is enjoying, he nevertheless also alleged that the NDP plans to «vigorously oppose our plan for jobs and growth through trade. «
«There is a lack of understanding of how critical trade is to this country and that we thrive on trade and our future prosperity depends on it,» he said. «Now in their new role as Official Opposition, the NDP can be counted on to aggressively oppose and obstruct us at every single step along the way as we advance our pro-trade plan. «
In his speech, Mr. Fast said the NDP’s «anti-trade, high-tax agenda» could pose a real risk not only to Canadians, but also to Canada’s global reputation as a good place to invest.
«While we continue to advocate on behalf of hard-working Canadians… to create jobs and economic growth,» he said, «the new opposition, supported by special interest groups that fail to have real priorities of hard-working Canadians at heart, can be counted on to advocate outdated policies that, if ever implemented, would stall growth, kill jobs and set Canadian families back. «
Suspicion and agendas
Robert Chisholm, the NDP’s new international trade critic, told Embassy he was surprised and disappointed about Mr. Fast’s words.
«I frankly thought that maybe he had pulled a campaign speech out of his pocket instead of a ministerial speech,» he said.
Mr. Chisholm said he is not sure why Mr. Fast would choose to embark on such a political attack, but he opposes the minister’s premise.
«I don’t accept that the NDP is opposed to trade deals,» he said. «However, we think that whatever we are going to be negotiating needs to be in the best interest of Canadians. «
The NDP was merely flagging serious weaknesses in the government’s previous trade agreements, Mr. Chisholm said. The party raised concerns over rampant human and labour rights violations in Colombia; Panama’s reputation for being a tax haven; and abuse of indigenous rights in Peru.
The trade deals with Colombia and Peru have already kicked in, while the one with Panama, although signed, still needs to pass through the legislative process.
The NDP is also calling for an end to NAFTA’s Chapter 11, which allows companies to sue states, and it wants strong accounting of human, labour and environmental rights in all future deals. It also encourages protecting Canadian industries, such as the automotive and agricultural sectors.
Mr. Chisholm said the fact voters gave the NDP such a strong voice in Parliament is a testament to its positions, including on trade.
«That says something about what we put forward and the priorities we talked about with Canadians,» said Mr. Chisholm.
Stuart Trew, trade campaigner with the Council of Canadians, an organization that often shares the NDP’s trade views, said that--despite having a majority in their hands--the Conservatives are still trying to differentiate themselves from the other parties.
«They are trying to paint the opposition as anti-jobs and put in people’s minds that their agenda is the job agenda and the NDP is regressive and they are fighting the same old battle and are stuck in the past,» he said.
But Mr. Fast’s comments might also be an indication the government is recognizing the weight of the new opposition, Mr. Trew said.
«If I am thinking optimistically, this might be a recognition that the trade agenda will not be a matter-of-fact decision for the government,» he said. «It's not the same old with no alternative base. There are people asking for a different agenda, people who are suspicious of this idea that trade and low taxes create jobs. «
But while the NDP does indeed have an opportunity to become the mainstream alternative to the current government, if they don’t reconsider their thinking on the economy, «they're toast,» said David Emerson, who was trade minister for the Conservative government from 2006 to 2008.
Much of the new Official Opposition’s caucus stems from Quebec, which, despite some protectionism in certain sectors like agriculture, is a very trade-oriented province, Mr. Emerson said.
«So the NDP will have to come to grasp how much they want to alienate the mainstream industry in Quebec,» he said.
Echoing Mr. Fast, Mr. Emerson said that while the NDP’s responsibility in the House of Commons has increased, the party has an «archeological ideology.» He called the party’s human rights and environmental concerns a smoke screen for its dislike to free trade. Everyone shares concerns about human rights and the environment, he said.
The article from the Canadian newspaper contains 1000 words amd only 6 units which are considered as objects of interest, they are:
partisan attack — metaphor
heated — metaphor
embark — metaphor
rampant — metaphor
paint — metaphor
they’re toast — metaphor
It means that here is there the lowest percentage of interesting for us units, which is equal 0. 6%. And all of them are metaphors.
In the written work we’ve discussed all the planned points.
First of all we’ve found the differences between two terms «variety» and «dialect». Thus we can say that dialect denotes a language form associated with a certain group of people but is usually associated with a given region (hence a «regional dialect») or a social class or group (a «social dialect»). Variety is any set of language habits that is shared by a certain group of speakers for use in certain contexts.
Then we came to conclusion that Standard English is a wrong term due to any literary norm of any English-speaking country builds a standard. There is no International Standard (yet), in the sense that publishers cannot currently aim at a standard which is not locally bound.
Finally we’ve analyzed stylistic devices in the newspapers. Also we have determined some statistics. In the UK newspaper there is 1. 625% metaphors and 0. 125% slang expressions. In the USA newspaper there is 0. 75% metaphors and in the Canadian newspaper there is only 0. 6% metaphors.
Thus we can say the number and percentage are poor only for the first sight. But the very units can lead communication breakdown, only they are to become first-line citations. So here we’ve got the follows the most saturated with metaphors is the UK though it has a slang expression and it is no doubt useful. The second and the third places are The US and Canada correspondingly. It means one should study the English language on the Canadian press materials to know how to speak simply and clear, and vice versa one should study the English language on the UK press materials in order to be ready to face slang expressions and metaphors. Of course study should be complex in order to be complete; nevertheless the press is a pretty good way to learn actual lexis. Another and the last point is as follows in our work we’ve faced no euphemisms. This point, no doubt should be investigated further, but it real luck no to face them from many points of view such as ethics search of equivalents and so on.
1. Albert, C. A History of the English Language / C. Albert, Baugh Cable, Thomas Cable. — 5th ed. — Prentice Hall, 2002. — 373 p.
2. Edwin, L. Bad Language: Are Some Words Better Than Others? / L. Edwin. — Oxford Univ. Press, 2005. — 238 p.
3. Grzega, J. English and General Historical Lexicology/ Joachim Grzega, Marion Schцner. — Katholische Universitat Eichstatt-Ingolstadt, Germany, July 2007. — 73p.
4. Jenkins, J. World Englishes. / J. Jenkins. — 2nd ed. — London Routledge, 2008. — 256 p.
5. Melchers, G. World Englishes: An Introduction. / Melchers Gunnel, Shaw Philip. — Arnold, 2003. 276 p.
6. Mugglestone, L. The Oxford History of English. / L. Mugglestone. — Oxford Univ. Press, 2006 — 420 p.
7. Schneider, W. English Around the World. / W. Schneider. — Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York First published, 2011. — 258 p.
8. Trask, R. Dictionary of English Grammar. / R. Trask. — Penguin, 2000 — 259p.
9. William, W. The Life and Growth of Language. / W. William. — 6th ed. — London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Co., -1975. — 342p.
Table of authorities
2. Крамаревский А. Англо-русский политический словарь. / А. Крамаревский. — 1-е изд. — М.: «Антэя», 2000. — 1550 с.
3. Мюллер, В.К. Англо-русский словарь. /
4. http: //www. embassymag. ca/page/view/ndptrade-06−08−2011, дата входа: 15. 05. 2011.
5. http: //online. wsj. com/article/SB10001424052702303714704576380941371991816. html? mod=WSJ_hp_us_mostpop_read, дата входа: 15. 05. 2011.
6. http: //www. telegraph. co. uk/news/politics/david-cameron/8 571 684/David-Cameron-faces-mutiny-over-NHS-climbdown. html, дата входа: 15. 05. 2011.ПоказатьСвернуть