Luis Salgado UWP 1 Ian Afflerbach 2/5/11 The Lingo to Language When Biased Language Use is Associated With

Bullying and Dominance Behavior: The Moderating Effect of Prejudice is an empirical research article written by V. P. Poteat and C. D. DiGiovanni. The authors bring up social issues like bullying, homophobia, and prejudice in this article and how they affect students in school. The authors believe multiple factors contribute to the use of sexual orientation biased language [and] because of its prevalence and consequences, research is needed to understand what factors contribute to the use of biased language(1123). Therefore, the authors conducted their own research on how bullying, dominance behavior, biased language use, and sexual prejudice are associated amongst each other. They give the reader a chance to understand the issue at hand by devoting three prior sections explaining connections between biased language to that of bullying, to that of dominance behavior, and to that of sexual prejudice. They come up with the myriad hypothesis before the initiation of their study. They believe that boys would report more frequent engagement in these behaviors and greater sexual prejudice than girls... students in earlier grade levels may report more frequent engagement in these behaviors than those in later grade level... students who endorse stronger sexual prejudice also would report more frequent use of sexual orientation biased language... biased language use is associated with bullying and dominance behavior irrespective of sexual prejudice or, alternatively, that sexual prejudice moderates these behaviors(1125). They

anticipated many results and proved them through their case study. The audience for this argument are school administrations throughout the country, students parents, and college students. They want the audience to be aware of these behaviors associated with bullying so that they can input these findings in anti-bullying programs. The form of this article can be compared to that of a laboratory write up. It has the abstract before anything. This first piece acquaints the reader with what the whole topic will be about without giving in depth detail. The next piece of the article is a minute section with keywords (six in total). These two sections are there to warm the readers thoughts about the subject and to start bringing up questions. the article continues with a three paragraph explanation of the topics discussed in the abstract and defines the keywords. This article follows with two sections on how past studies describe bullying and dominance behavior with relation to homophobic language. The first section has four paragraphs on which of the two behaviors, bullying and biased language, has a stronger role to prejudice. The other sections explains how biased language is used to portray dominance in a group. It seems all these sections served the purpose to get a solid background on the issue. Everything that follows is their case study. It is similar to that of a laboratory write up with a procedure, hypothesis, data, and a discussion. They give many hypothesis prior to anything. A Method section is committed to show how they went about on gathering all the results, data, observations, prove their validity and show the reliability of their measuring scales. A results section states that their goal was reached through the studys data collection and correlation. In all the sections the authors created, they might have also used words the reader might not understand or fully comprehend. To that issue, they would give examples in parenthesis right the word. For example, ... and administrators considered

their anti-bullying policy to cover bias-motivated harassment of students (e.g., based on actual or perceived sexual orientation) (1126). An example of biased-motivated harassment is given to show their meaning. A Because X, we did Y sentence syntax is used to explain their actions. For example, they state, Because of the small number of participants for each specific racial or ethnic minority group, we dichotomized race as White or racial minority (1127). Since this is an empirical research article, the voice is not something you might find in most narratives. The tone is very direct and blunt. This form of voice makes a statement to the reader that this issue is of serious concern. They choose to cite many references throughout their article to have more validity to what their implying. They do this specially in the beginning of the article where they pick out past studies to show a background to their current study. All the numbers coming from the data and results from their experiment give a sense of truth through scientific research. They use complex formulas like the Turkey post-hoc comparisons, MANOVA, ANOVA, and Fishers Z (1127). They expect the audience to know these prior to reading the article because they dont bother to explain them. The Bullying Scale, the Agent subscale of the Homophobic Content Agent Target scale, and the Attitudes toward Lesbian and Gay Men scale are the scales reported to be used to measure the childrens responses and determined behaviors. The use of all the statistical methods to gain a logical conclusion/results is there to complement their beliefs and the evidence to their hypothesis. Unlike the well known statistical data procedures every scientist uses today, theres the vivid imagery coming from innovative syntax structured by other authors. Imagine that everyone speaking the english language spoke with originality and new phrases, similes, metaphor, and comparisons were borne out of the minds of the speaker. Would this hurt how people

communicate with each other or foster the language? Orwell proposes through thorough arguments that the English language is losing clarity and is a natural growth and not an instrument which we shape for our own purpose (37) in his 1946 article called Politics and the English Language. He forgets to weigh how the context of the environment and the authors intention has high value for the idea of creating a written piece. Orwell decides that modern English is poorly constructed in that ... the passive voice is wherever possible used in preference to the active(39). He argues that it is used to save time, its easy, and it is all for show. Most of the article above is written in passive voice. The article had the purpose to prove hypothesis and did this by means of research. They justify their passive voice by providing the tables and correlation graphs later found in the article. In one of their hypothesis, they stated, boys would report more frequent engagement in these behaviors... (1125) making the frequency and types of behaviors vague. This is a scientific article with the intention to prove a claim through experiment or research. The authors later explained how these behaviors were decided based on different pre-established scales. Orwell is correct when he says this is to save time and its easy. A scientific article is difficult to comprehend as it is with all the data, procedures, and new information bombarded every other sentence. Why not make it easier to understand in this type of article? The authors strive to get their point across to the reader with minimal confusion. Orwell argues that the modern English language has come to lack originality and as a consequence, a pattern is widely used. He criticizes the worn-out metaphors which have lost all evocative power and are merely used because they save people the trouble of inventing phrases for themselves (39). He demands for the audience to visualize something new, repelling past

cliches. He wants the words displayed on paper to create the vivid image concocted in the authors mind. In Orwells short reading, he criticizes an author for writing a pamphlet because the author felt impelled to do so. Orwell does not agree that the author of the pamphlet truly felt impelled to write his feelings because ...his words, like cavalry horses answering the bugle, group themselves automatically into the familiar dreary pattern (44)Whether or not the pamphlets author noticed this familiar dreary pattern or not, the context for this piece was during post-WWII. The authors intention was supposedly to express how he feels and to let others know of it. Why else would he publicly expose his feelings? His form of expression is of familiar dreary pattern on the intention to appeal to the masses receiving this literature. Orwell emphasizes how much modern English does not make ones meaning clear. By finding something that the reader familiarizes with, the pamphlets author already has an advantage to reach a larger public audience. Assuming English speaking people are his intended audience, doesnt the author succeed in putting his point across if the audience understands his feelings? Again, this works for that piece of writing because its intention is too reach the masses. The research article written by Poteat & DiGiovanni also illustrate this by approaching their specific audience through selective voice and form. The smooth transition pattern of section after section is shaped this way for the understanding by the school administrators, students parents, and higher education students everywhere. The issue being observed through the experiment is social behaviors that harm others. So, the step by step style of the article makes it easy and meets the authors intention to prove their point. According to Orwell, The whole tendency of modern prose is away from concreteness (41). As an example, he compares the prose of an excerpt from Ecclesiastes and

his modern translation of it. He exaggerates in an effort to show how ludicrous the modern language has morphed in to. When reading a spiritual book of that nature, it is important to feel and see with your imagery coming from the text. However, when reading an article like When Biased Language Use is Associated With Bullying and Dominance Behavior: The Moderating Effect of Prejudice, there needs no pressure to see what types of biased language, bullying, dominant behavior, or prejudice will be experimented with. The authors are not interested in building pity or empathy for the victims of such situations but rather to make a wider awareness on the subject and its severity. They bluntly state students in earlier grade levels may report more frequent engagement in these behaviors than those in later grade level (1125) and then go about proving their statement through empirical research. Their graphs and tables providing the correlation is their concreteness, their validity, their way to prove their clarity. Orwell sends out an argument that modern authors lack originality. His reference to cavalry horses and how their action is similar to that of modern authors demonstrates in itself how authors should think of original metaphors and similes. He stated that the pamphlet authors words were like cavalry horses answering the bugle, group themselves automatically into the familiar dreary pattern (44). His simile is an acceptable example of novelty. It plays a vivid image presenting the monotonous formation of the horses and compares it to the pattern of writing. However, his audience may be limited to those who know about the cavalry customs and how their horses responded to the sound of the bugle. The languages context is vital to get the point across. Making this comparison is a risk to take but works by evoking vivid images in the audience, unlike the research article above. The authors mention, Because of the small number of participants for each specific racial or ethnic minority group, we dichotomized race as White

or racial minority (1127). A solid cause/effect formula designed to tell what is happening without giving detail. Who are the minorities? What does it really mean when they dichotomize? Nothing is compared or contrasted leaving the reader to make their own assumptions. A small number or participants to a rancher in the Midwest might be 10 people while it may be 100 for a city dweller. The message does not effectively get across to all readers. It is important to see who the audience is and where the literature is being read. When Orwell gives great examples of what horrible modern English looks like, he then states that the author either has a meaning and cannot express it, or he inadvertently says something else, or he is almost indifferent as to whether his words mean anything or not (38). He uses the either/or fallacy trying to force the reader to look the limited options, when in reality there are more. If he believed that the language was not to be used for our own purpose (37), then why does he, himself, try to argue the style guidelines proposed in his Politics and the English Language with such a fallacy? The myriad articles, journals, textbooks, etc. circulating the market and internet that do not match the style Orwell set out in his own writing have their reason to be the way they are. The empirical research paper written by V. P. Poteat and C. D. DiGiovanni undeniably contains its passive voice. The authors are vague and select the familiar words for the purpose to get the argument across to their audience. The visual image they want to portray isnt in their language usage but in the facts they have found through the data collected. They bring awareness to the intended audience in a desired context and in doing this, they succeed in proving their point with the necessary elements.