English Language - Contemporary Examples

Naarm

During the 2025 Sir Douglas Nicholls Round, AFL clubs adopted Indigenous lexemes such as “Kuwarna” for the Adelaide Crows and “Naarm” for the Melbourne Demons, alongside venue names like “Wurundjeri” and “Whadjuk.” Through code-switching into First Nations languages, these lexical substitutions celebrate Indigenous culture and recognise Australia’s traditional custodians. The inclusion of Indigenous nouns symbolises reconciliation and mutual respect, transforming sport—a unifying national platform—into a vehicle for cultural education and inclusivity. This linguistic recognition dismantles colonial linguistic dominance and fosters national pride grounded in diversity. Ultimately, the AFL’s embrace of Indigenous language demonstrates how respectful linguistic choices can shape attitudes toward harmony and cultural understanding.

During the 2025 Sir Douglas Nicholls Round, AFL clubs adopted Indigenous proper nouns such as “Kuwarna” for the Adelaide Crows and “Naarm” for the Melbourne Demons, with venue names such as “Wurundjeri” and “Whadjuk”. Code-switching with Indigenous lexemes symbolisises reconciliation and mutual respect, by transforming sport, which is a unifying national platform, into a vehiclefor cultural education and inclusivity. Thus, this linguistic change dismantles colonial linguistic dominance and fosters national pride grounded in diversity. Ultimately, the AFL’s embrace of Indigenous language demonstrates how respectful linguistic choices can shape attitudes toward harmony and cultural understanding.

Survival Day

The release of the “Survival Day” statement in January 2025 by the organisation No to Violence exemplifies the transformative power of language in acknowledging historical trauma and resilience. The noun “survival” carries strong connotations of endurance, strength, and perseverance, reframing the colonial invasion narrative from one of defeat to one of resistance. By replacing terms like “Australia Day,” which evoke celebration of colonisation, with “Survival Day,” the discourse honours the fortitude of Indigenous Australians and challenges the dominant Eurocentric narrative. This lexical reclamation empowers Indigenous voices, validating their lived experiences and ongoing struggles for justice. Consequently, the shift from celebratory to commemorative language demonstrates how linguistic reframing can foster empathy, reconciliation, and a more truthful national identity.

Monash University

In 2025, Monash University released an online editorial guide outlining the correct use of inclusive language when referring to gender, sexuality, and Indigenous identity. The guide’s insistence on capitalising proper nouns such as “Indigenous,” “First Nations,” “Aboriginal Australians,” and “Torres Strait Islanders” exemplifies linguistic elevation as a form of respect. Capitalisation, typically reserved for names and titles, symbolically confers prominence and recognition upon historically marginalised communities, rejecting colonial linguistic hierarchies that diminished their status. By codifying such standards, Monash University institutionalises inclusivity, encouraging speakers to approach sensitive topics with dignity and precision. This deliberate linguistic reform not only acknowledges Australia’s diverse social fabric but also demonstrates how language policies can actively dismantle stigma and promote equality through education and representation.

Indigenous Lexemes in Victorian Primary Schools

Following the 2024 policy mandating Indigenous naming for Victorian public primary schools, institutions such as Orchard Park Primary adopted Aboriginal nouns including “Wallert” (possum), “Marram” (kangaroo), and “Dulai Wurrung” (platypus) for their house names. This lexical shift exemplifies linguistic reclamation and cultural revitalisation, embedding First Nations languages into the educational domain. The integration of Aboriginal lexemes promotes respect, visibility, and intergenerational continuity, encouraging students to engage with Australia’s linguistic diversity. Through these lexical adoptions, schools perform symbolic reconciliation, positioning Indigenous language as a living and integral part of national identity. Consequently, this policy reflects how institutional language choices can actively support social inclusivity and cultural preservation.

People with a Cervix

Recently, backlash erupted over ACON’s cervical screening campaign which used the noun phrase “people with a cervix” in place of gendered nouns such as “women” or “females.” While the phrase aimed to employ inclusive and non-gendered language, it inadvertently created ambiguity and alienation among some audiences. The abstraction of identity into a biological descriptor compromised mutual intelligibility and emotional resonance, as it detached the health message from the social identity of womanhood. Although well-intentioned in promoting inclusivity for transgender and non-binary individuals, this lexical choice highlights the tension between clarity and inclusivity in public discourse. Consequently, ACON’s campaign underscores how linguistic innovation must balance social sensitivity with communicative precision to effectively foster understanding and acceptance.

Ginger bread people

During the 2024 Christmas season, a parliamentary store adopted the noun phrase “gingerbread people” instead of the traditional “gingerbread man.” The hypernym “people” neutralises gender, reflecting evolving cultural values of inclusivity and acceptance. By avoiding male-default terminology, this linguistic adjustment validates non-binary and gender-diverse identities, promoting equality through everyday vocabulary. The subtle shift illustrates how inclusive language can challenge entrenched norms without erasing tradition. Consequently, this change represents the government’s broader commitment to linguistic reform as a tool for fostering unity and acceptance across diverse Australian communities.

ACT

The ACT government’s decision to update legislative language by adopting gender-neutral pronouns such as “they, them, and themselves” symbolises a progressive step towards inclusivity and representation. By rejecting the binary gender dichotomy entrenched in traditional English grammar, the government acknowledges the spectrum of gender identities present within modern Australian society. The substitution of plural, non-gendered pronouns reflects an awareness of linguistic determinism—how language both mirrors and shapes social thought. Consequently, this reform not only modernises bureaucratic communication but also validates the lived experiences of gender-diverse individuals, reinforcing a national commitment to equality and respect within institutional discourse.

Alleged Offenders

Non-discriminatory language can foster fairness and equality by promoting neutral and respectful perceptions of individuals and groups within society. Earlier this year, Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan used the noun phrase “alleged offenders” during a press conference about amendments to the state’s bail laws. Consciously utilising this noun phrase instead of the more negatively connotated noun “criminal” demonstrates an awareness of the presumption of innocence that underpins the justice system. By avoiding premature judgement, Allan’s lexical choice prevents the audience from forming unjustified biases against those accused, thereby upholding principles of fairness and due process. In doing so, she models the ethical responsibility of public figures to employ language that avoids stigmatisation and fosters equitable treatment within the legal sphere.

Correcion’s Staff

Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan’s use of the noun phrase “correction’s staff” in substitution for the more negatively connotated noun phrase “prison guards” exemplifies the power of language in shaping public perceptions of authority and justice. The noun “staff” carries neutral, professional connotations, foregrounding the occupational and rehabilitative role of such employees, rather than the punitive and coercive undertones associated with “guards.” By choosing a lexeme that humanises rather than vilifies, Allan reframes the prison environment from one of surveillance and punishment to one of guidance and correction. In doing so, she reinforces the government’s intention to prioritise rehabilitation and reintegration over retribution. This lexical shift demonstrates how subtle linguistic choices can soften public attitudes toward the justice system and promote more compassionate societal perspectives on offenders.

National Security

In August 2024, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton escalated xenophobic rhetoric by asserting that no Palestinians fleeing the Gaza war zone should be admitted into Australia as “it is not prudent to do so and … puts our national security at risk.” The declarative sentence structure and evaluative adjective “prudent” frame the statement as logical and responsible, thereby legitimising exclusionary and Islamophobic ideologies under the guise of national safety. Through this strategic manipulation of language, Dutton forges a connection between Palestinian identity and threat, perpetuating harmful stereotypes that fuel public fear and division. Such xenophobic discourse cultivates discriminatory attitudes within the Australian public, reinforcing the marginalisation of Muslim and Middle Eastern communities. Consequently, Dutton’s language choice illustrates how political rhetoric can legitimise prejudice and entrench systemic racism through seemingly rational linguistic framing

osraeli

The use of dysphemistic and discriminatory language in professional medical settings undermines ethical standards and public trust. This was demonstrated in February 2025 when two Sydney nurses were recorded threatening to “kill” Israeli patients and referring to them as “Israeli dogs.” The noun phrase “Israeli dogs” constitutes a dehumanising dysphemism that equates individuals to animals, reflecting deeply xenophobic and anti-Semitic ideologies. Such language breaches the fundamental principles of equality and compassion expected within healthcare institutions, replacing care with cruelty. The nurses’ linguistic behaviour not only perpetuates hatred but also endangers patient safety and damages institutional integrity. This incident starkly illustrates how discriminatory language in formal domains can incite fear, reinforce social divisions, and erode the moral responsibility of those entrusted with public welfare.

WhietGlo

Earlier this year, the dental company WhiteGlo faced criticism for its advertisement using the pun “Melburnians make the White choice.” By substituting the adjective “right” with the homophonous adjective “white,” the company inadvertently invoked racial undertones, transforming a playful slogan into one suggestive of racial superiority. The adjective “white” carries unavoidable sociocultural connotations of privilege and exclusion, rendering the pun tone-deaf and offensive within a multicultural Australian context. This linguistic misjudgement underscores the importance of semantic awareness in advertising, as careless wordplay can perpetuate divisive ideologies and elicit public backlash. Consequently, WhiteGlo’s advertisement exemplifies how inappropriate language use in the public domain can damage brand reputation and reinforce the necessity of ethical and culturally sensitive communication

Jacinta Allen

In December 2024, Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan utilised the profanity “dickhead” in the imperative clause “don’t be a dickhead” on the social media platform X, referring to the irresponsible lighting of fires during bushfire season. The use of such informal and colloquial language in a public domain challenges traditional expectations of political discourse, where formal register and restraint are typically upheld. The profanity “dickhead” functions as a dysphemism that evokes social disapproval and ridicule towards reckless behaviour, effectively appealing to the public’s moral sensibilities through humour and bluntness. By employing this vernacular expression, Allan aligns herself with everyday Australians, fostering solidarity and relatability while simultaneously condemning dangerous actions. This demonstrates how informal language, when contextually appropriate, can be a powerful rhetorical tool to shape public behaviour and reinforce communal responsibility.

Period Relied

In 2024, Uber Eats released an advertisement employing parallelism and wordplay in the slogan “Period Romance, No. Period Relief, Yes.” The repetition of the homophone “period”—first as an adjective, then as a noun—creates humour and memorability while simultaneously destigmatising menstruation. This linguistic creativity transforms a previously taboo subject into a mainstream conversation, positioning the brand as supportive of women’s health and empowerment. The campaign’s clever manipulation of form and meaning engages audiences through wit while normalising discourse around menstruation. As such, Uber Eats’ slogan exemplifies how language can both challenge stigma and foster social progress through strategic and inclusive expression.

All abilities day

 

The creation of “All Abilities Day” in collaboration between Dylan Alcott and the Australian Open on January 21st, 2025, exemplifies the growing use of inclusive language to promote diversity and acceptance within sport. The determiner “all” in the noun phrase “all abilities” reinforces equality by rejecting exclusionary implications often embedded in the prefix “dis-” of “disability.” By reframing physical differences as varying “abilities” rather than deficits, the event’s name removes stigma and empowers those with disabilities. This lexical transformation fosters a culture of respect and inclusion, illustrating how language can shape public perception to view disability through a lens of strength and capability. Consequently, Tennis Australia’s deliberate linguistic choice demonstrates how positive and inclusive terminology can reshape societal attitudes, encouraging a more empathetic and united sporting community.

MVP

During the 2025 Test series, commentator Isa Guha described fast bowler Jasprit Bumrah as India’s “most valuable primate”, a remark that drew immediate public condemnation for its racial and cultural insensitivity. The metaphorical language, invoking dehumanising animal imagery, perpetuates harmful stereotypes and reflects the historical misuse of language to marginalise minority groups. However, the widespread backlash, including from media outlets, cricket fans, and advocacy groups, demonstrates an increasing societal recognition of the power of language to influence perceptions and uphold or challenge discrimination. This collective response illustrates how public critique can function as a mechanism for social accountability, prompting commentators and institutions to adopt more culturally respectful and inclusive language. By denouncing such expressions, the discourse surrounding professional sport in Australia is reframed to prioritise equity and respect, showing how linguistic awareness can foster social cohesion and challenge entrenched prejudices. Ultimately, the incident underscores the role of public scrutiny in shaping ethical and responsible language use in national media

YArra Valley Incident

Following the 2024 Yarra Valley Grammar “unrapeable” incident, widespread public condemnation demonstrated the growing unwillingness of Australian society to tolerate misogynistic and dehumanising language. The adjective “unrapeable,” used by students to rank female peers, exemplified a deeply harmful linguistic construct that objectifies women and trivialises sexual violence. However, the ensuing backlash — including strong criticism from feminist commentators, educators, and the broader public — illustrates a collective linguistic awareness and a demand for accountability. This public response reflects a broader cultural shift toward recognising the social power of language and its capacity to perpetuate harm. By denouncing such expressions, communities actively reassert values of respect and equality, using discourse as a means of social correction. Ultimately, the incident catalysed important discussions about consent education and gendered language in schools, underscoring how public critique can transform offensive speech into an opportunity for reflection, learning, and cultural progress within Australian society.

Fatima Payman’s use of teen speak

Fatima Payman’s incorporation of teen slang and informal language in her September 2025 speech exemplifies the shifting sociolinguistic landscape in which political figures adapt to emerging youth discourses to construct relatability and inclusivity. Through the lexical items “rizzless,” “unc prime minister,” and the initialism “TSPMOSM,” Payman strategically aligns herself with the linguistic conventions of teenage and online vernacular. The term “rizzless,” a derivative of “rizz” (charisma), functions as a neologism within teen slang, indexing the humorous and self-deprecating tone common in Gen Z digital communication. Similarly, the vocative phrase “unc prime minister” reflects a playful recontextualisation of authority, whereby the typically formal title of “Prime Minister” is juxtaposed with the affectionate colloquial “unc,” subverting power hierarchies through endearing mockery. This linguistic blending of informal register and institutional discourse challenges traditional expectations of political communication as distant and elitist. By embracing “TSPMOSM,” an acronym emblematic of online abbreviation culture, Payman reduces linguistic formality and amplifies in-group solidarity with younger audiences familiar with such coded expressions. Consequently, her language demonstrates the function of informal language in democratising public discourse, dismantling prescriptive norms of political rhetoric, and positioning politicians as socially attuned interlocutors rather than detached figures of authority. Thus, Payman’s teen speak encapsulates the capacity of informal and slang-driven language to forge intimacy, promote accessibility, and reflect Australia’s evolving sociolinguistic inclusivity.

AFL’s use of IFL

The AFL’s deployment of informal language, Netspeak, and emojis in its November 2024 Instagram post exemplifies how digital communication platforms foster linguistic innovation to strengthen community engagement. The caption “Chat,” accompanied by the eye emoji, operates as a pragmatic marker of curiosity and shared cultural understanding, encouraging audiences to infer meaning through context rather than explicit verbal articulation. The single-word utterance “Chat” functions as a discourse-initiating noun common in online vernacular, connoting gossip, speculation, or informal discussion. This lexical brevity aligns with the economy of expression characteristic of Netspeak, appealing to audiences fluent in online semiotic cues. Meanwhile, the use of the eye emoji introduces multimodal meaning-making, functioning paralinguistically to suggest playful suspicion or intrigue—meanings that would otherwise rely on prosodic or gestural cues in spoken interaction. By employing these informal linguistic features, the AFL mirrors the communicative style of its predominantly youthful digital audience, thereby constructing a brand persona that is approachable, humorous, and culturally literate. Such choices demonstrate how institutions increasingly adopt the language of online communities to dismantle hierarchical boundaries between organisations and followers. Ultimately, the AFL’s language foregrounds the capacity of informal and digital communication to convey tone, foster inclusion, and reinforce solidarity within a shared cultural discourse community.

Marty Sheargold’s sexist on-air comments

Triple M host Marty Sheargold’s February 2025 on-air remarks exemplify how sexist and taboo language reinforce discriminatory ideologies and perpetuate gendered marginalisation within Australian media discourse. In stating that he “would rather hammer a nail through the head of [his] penis” than watch the Matildas compete in the upcoming Asian Cup, Sheargold employs a deliberately graphic hyperbole underpinned by taboo lexis associated with male genitalia. The vulgar imagery operates as an index of masculinity and functions to trivialise women’s sport through shock humour, simultaneously elevating male aggression as a marker of authenticity and humour. This construction of humour through gendered denigration reflects deep-seated androcentric ideologies that position men’s sport as the default site of athletic legitimacy while rendering women’s achievements inferior or unworthy of attention. The syntactic intensifier “rather” reinforces the comparative devaluation of the Matildas, while the violent semantic field of “hammer” and “nail” evokes physical domination, thereby entrenching a cultural association between masculinity, violence, and disdain for female participation. The public backlash and subsequent apology highlight a growing sociolinguistic intolerance toward overt sexism in broadcast media, revealing the shifting linguistic expectations of professionalism and inclusivity within contemporary Australia. Ultimately, Sheargold’s remarks demonstrate how discriminatory language continues to reproduce exclusionary gender ideologies, while the ensuing censure underscores language’s central role in shaping and contesting social values surrounding equality and respect.

Australians urged to avoid using the word “Boomer”

The October 2024 campaign urging Australians to avoid ageist expressions such as “Boomer,” “Millennial,” and “you can’t teach an old dog new tricks” reflects a growing recognition of how discriminatory language can marginalise individuals based on age and threaten positive face needs. The lexical label “Boomer,” once a neutral generational descriptor, has evolved into a pejorative used to construct an in-group/out-group dichotomy between younger and older Australians. Through semantic drift, it has accrued connotations of resistance to change and social irrelevance, thus reinforcing stereotypes of the elderly as technologically inept or socially regressive. Similarly, idiomatic expressions such as “over the hill” and the comparative clause “50 is the new 30” presuppose that ageing equates to decline, while simultaneously valorising youth as the benchmark of vitality and competence. These examples demonstrate how even seemingly benign colloquialisms perpetuate implicit age hierarchies, undermining the dignity of older speakers by violating their positive face — the desire to be approved of and respected. The call to avoid such expressions foregrounds the ethical responsibility of language users to maintain inclusivity and linguistic sensitivity. By challenging entrenched ageist idioms, contemporary discourse highlights the dynamic relationship between language and social perception, illustrating how the re-evaluation of discriminatory terminology can reshape societal attitudes and foster intergenerational respect.

“No Birds” Bayswater Car Rental slogan

Bayswater Car Rental’s continued use of the slogan “No Birds” demonstrates the persistence of sexist and discriminatory language in Australian advertising discourse, revealing how linguistic choices can reinforce gendered stereotypes and disregard social progress toward equality. The noun “birds,” employed as a colloquial term for women, exemplifies objectifying slang that reduces female identity to a casual, dehumanising label. Its continued use as part of a corporate slogan perpetuates outdated patriarchal ideologies that trivialise women’s presence and contributions in the workforce. The declarative structure “No Birds” functions as an exclusionary imperative, explicitly denying women’s participation while simultaneously constructing male employees as the normative default. Such language constitutes a violation of positive face needs by positioning women as unworthy or incapable of professional engagement, undermining their social respect and legitimacy. Although the slogan originates from historical colloquialism, its ongoing circulation in 2025 foregrounds tensions between linguistic tradition and contemporary expectations of inclusivity. This case highlights how commercial discourse, when left unexamined, can normalise discriminatory ideologies through everyday linguistic repetition. Ultimately, the “No Birds” slogan exemplifies how sexist language not only reflects but sustains systemic gender bias, reinforcing the broader sociolinguistic need to reevaluate entrenched expressions that conflict with modern egalitarian values.

Neo-Nazi” booing of Welcome to Country at Melbourne Anzac ceremony

The reported “Neo-Nazi” booing of a Welcome to Country ceremony during the April 2025 Melbourne Anzac commemoration encapsulates the intersection of discriminatory and taboo language in the reproduction of ethnocentric ideologies. Verbal interjections such as “It’s our country” and “What about the Anzacs?” foreground exclusionary nationalistic discourse that privileges white Australian identity while implicitly rejecting Indigenous presence and sovereignty. The possessive pronoun “our” functions as an ideological boundary marker, linguistically delineating who is perceived as belonging to the nation and who is not. By invoking “the Anzacs,” the hecklers exploit a culturally sacred lexeme to legitimise their hostility, thereby appropriating national symbols in the service of racial exclusion. The event’s association with the label “Neo-Nazi” underscores the taboo and extremist nature of such discourse, signalling how overtly discriminatory language continues to threaten social cohesion. These utterances violate both positive and negative face needs of Indigenous participants — denying respect and autonomy — while perpetuating intergroup hostility. The incident reveals how public language use can mirror broader societal tensions around national identity, race, and belonging. In this way, the Anzac Day booing serves as a confronting example of how discriminatory language operates as both a linguistic and ideological act of exclusion, reinforcing the urgency of promoting respectful intercultural communication within Australian society.