Nick Wilson

For more than two decades there have been claims of a shift in the way various linguistic taboos (i.e. swearwords and slurs) are used and perceived by members of the broader community. This supposed shift, which is believed to reflect the current values maintained by society on the whole, has prompted social commentators and researchers alike to suggest that the most taboo words no longer relate to sex, religion, or bodily effluvia, but derive from a domain of language classified as "-IST language" (i.e. disparaging or pejorative language targeting people sharing similar characteristics). To test this claim in an Australian context, the authors of this paper asked 60 Australian-born university students to complete an online survey assessing not only each participant's personal perception of swearing, (potentially) offensive, and taboo language, but also their thoughts concerning the way the Australian population at large view various taboo terms. The results of this survey indicate that language which was once deemed to be the most offensive and taboo, has been overtaken in terms of taboo by -IST language.

Considering the need for pedagogically effective learning activities and materials to support language learning, particularly within teacher-led instruction, it is curious that at present there is no overarching, research-based framework available to educators to draw from when designing and implementing such activities and materials. To address this gap, the authors of this paper have drawn from a host of relevant research pertaining to cognitive neuroscience, educational psychology, and second language acquisition to establish a framework for designing and implementing activities and learning materials capable of facilitating enhanced language learning outcomes within an inclusive classroom. Incorporating ten key considerations – attention and focus, desirable difficulty, depth of processing, deliberate practice, novelty and surprise, wakeful rest, visible learning, meaningful feedback, affective engagement, and strategic choice and use – this versatile framework not only provides teachers with necessary knowledge for designing language learning activities and materials in an engaging and efficacious manner but may also embolden them to do so.

Although swearing is often perceived as intrinsically offensive language, it is how swearing use is indexed against a person’s understanding of local social norms that constructs swearing as offensive. This paper presents an analysis of swearing within a social context where high frequency swearing is a norm: a male rugby team in New Zealand. Drawing upon a dataset collected from ethnographically collected authentic interactions, an analysis of the frequency of swear words and a comparison with other English corpora is presented, followed by an interactional sociolinguistic analysis of how swearing is used in interactions. The aim of the paper is to demonstrate not only how swearing can be used to engender solidarity, but that a range of socio-pragmatic functions of swearing such as intensifying and indexing a vernacular identity, can be used in performing leadership.

This article uses an ethnographically based sociolinguistic approach to analyse ritual interactions that took place in a New Zealand male rugby team, paying particular attention to the way in which space and place are used as part of the construction of team identity. In following the development of spatial practice, the discourses of territoriality in pre-match communication are explored, and it is shown how the team uses spatial and linguistic practice to reconstruct an unfamiliar space as "home," thus allowing them to create a familiar space through ritual wherever they might be. In analysing the discourses and communicative practices present in the locker room, the construction of hegemonic masculinity is also discussed and it is found that while rugby is still inextricably bound up with hegemonic masculine ideology, these are found to a much lesser degree than elsewhere.

Goffman's dramaturgical model of interaction is often used to examine how communicative events are framed differently in public and private settings. However, this idea has restrictively been conflated with specific spatial locations. This paper contends that it is not the place where discourse is performed that styles it as front or backstage, but rather the stances taken in interactions, and the participation framework involved. Furthermore, backstage can be used to negotiate stances later performed frontstage, where they may index wider, ideological aspects of identity. This is demonstrated through the analysis of a sequence of linked backstage and frontstage interactions that involve two rugby coaches. The extracts presented and analysed take place in a New Zealand rugby team, a type of organisation in which space is particularly fluid. The dramaturgical model is demonstrated to be of use in examining leadership discourse within organisations, particularly in organisations in which multiple leaders exist.