oisesydney

When Kylie Minogue used the words dag and daggy in a TV interview last year, an explanation was required: “it’s just kind of like the opposite of cool, you know?”

What a perfect definition, and who better to define it than our national pop ambassador? Australian English is often mysterious when heard outside its native land: nothing is more confusing than the moment an Aussie talks about their love of thongs; an embarrassed British silence may follow, as listeners struggle to realise that we are talking quite innocently about ‘flip-flops’ (and you think our word sounds silly?)

The most familiar terms are the old Aussie cliches -  strewth, crikey and sheila – but while g’day is still in good health, many of these words are no longer widely used, except for in the outback. These days, mainstream Australian speech is all about avoiding too many syllables: we could meet up in the arvo for a convo about your recent compo; later on we’ll have a barbie with the rellies, but don’t forget your sunnies, and don’t let me find out you’ve been playing the pokies again. That’d be beaut.

Humorous and earthy topics are also fertile with Australianisms: cheap wine is goon or plonk, though beware or you might spend the next morning chundering into the dunny. A really daggy and uncultured person is a bogan, and the most scandalously daggy items of clothing are surely budgie smugglers – as worn by the losing candidate in our 2010 federal election.

Echoes of the past

Australia has a rich heritage of some 250 Aboriginal languages, from which names have been derived for our most famous national icons, including kangaroos, koalas, and boomerangs. For the most part, the influence of Aboriginal languages on Australian English can be found in plants, animals, and Aboriginal cultural practices; but there are also some well-known general words, like yakka (for hard work), bung (for ruined or broken), and willy-willy (a sort of small tornado).

Many Australian place names are also derived from Aboriginal languages. Canberra (our national capital) means ‘meeting place’ in Ngunnawal, Ballarat means ‘resting place’ in Wathaurong, and Uluru, the Pitjantjatjara name for Ayers Rock, became officially recognised in 1993. (For bonus points, take note that possessive apostrophes are never used in Australian place names, like Ayers Rock!)

Tragically, many of the languages from which these words were borrowed are no longer being spoken, as the influence of English has spread across the land.

To read the full article by John Mansfield go to: http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2011/01/dag-aussie-english/

We’re used to talking about English as a global language, as the language of international communication so what about English as a Lingua Franca? What does ELF mean?

According to Jennifer Jenkins, “English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) refers to the English that is used as a contact language among speakers who come from different first language and cultural backgrounds.” This means non-native speakers using English to communicate and its goal is different from EFL/ESL where it’s more often the goal to speak with native speakers and/or to use native speakers as a model.

One main idea is that non-native versions (or variants) of the non-core features of English should be considered, “legitimate features of individual ELF varieties rather than errors.” In EFL, we consider an ‘error’ in the context of standard native English whereas an error in ELF is therefore be redefined in relation to mutually-intelligible non-native speaker communication. Should we worry about the general question, isn’t it? Should we worry about the 3rd person ‘s’ if intelligibility is not affected?

We’re still very much in the theoretical argument here though and from a language training perspective, we also need to ask our learners what English they want or need to learn. How do they feel about the approach to errors? No doubt, the debate will continue.

Read Jennifer Jenkin’s full article here:

http://associates.iatefl.org/pages/materials/voicespdf/gi8.pdf

From time to time, we all question our level of satisfaction at work. Some of the challenges we face as we move ever faster forward include an increasingly high rate of technological innovation, quickly shifting employment and career trends not to mention a highly competitive global marketplace! Let’s not even talk about the GFC…

What kind of mind will it take to create a prosperous and peaceful work (and life) space? Lou Tice, a well-respected academic suggests that it is a mind that is, “receptive to change and able to figure out how to do more with less.”  It is what noted psychologist Abraham Maslow termed “self-actualizing.” To be self-actualizing means that we accept ourselves and others, we have a strong focus on solving problems outside the self, and we have deep feelings of sympathy and affection for humankind. It also means that we have strong ethics, definite moral standards, and independent stability in the face of hard knocks.

In Maslow’s words, “Self-actualizing people are, without a single exception, involved in a cause outside of themselves. They are devoted, working at something precious to them ? a calling, a vocation…. They are working at something fate has called them to somehow, and which they love, so that the joy/work dichotomy in them disappears.”

When we are self-actualizing, we are most likely to experience the level of happiness that Father Spitzer of Seattle University calls “H-4.”

At level H-1 we see happiness as a “feel-good” thing. All we want is to feel good, avoid feeling bad, and that’s it. We don’t give a hoot how anyone else is feeling.

At level H-2, we do a lot of work on ourselves, because we want to be better than the next guy. We have plenty of self-discipline, but it’s all ego-driven, and we’re not really happy, except when someone’s telling us how great we are.

At level H-3, we’re starting to make the best kind of happiness happen. That’s because what we want most is to help other people, and it feels great when we do. We forget about ourselves. More than anything else, we care about others ? our team, our community, the whole darn planet, and we want to be a contributing part of all of it.

At level H-4, we can see beyond the good of the team or the group to the ultimate good. We start to understand what unconditional love is all about, and we’re always thinking about what we can learn and how we can give. At level H-4, we can see the highest good in everything, and we just naturally respond to it with the best, most loving part of ourselves.

For the full article, see: http://www.thepacificinstitute.us/v2/index.php?name=library_d21