Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T08:15:59.476Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sweet talking: Food, language, and democracy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 September 2009

Guy Cook
Guy Cook*
Affiliation:
The Open University, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

At a time of diminishing resources, the sum of apparently minor personal decisions about food can have immense impact. These individual choices are heavily influenced by language, as those with vested interests seek to persuade individuals to act in certain ways. This makes the language of food politics a fitting area for an expanding applied linguistics oriented towards real-world language-related problems of global and social importance. The paper draws upon five consecutive research projects to show how applied linguistics research may contribute to public policy and debate, and also how, by entering such new arenas, it can develop its own methods and understanding of contemporary language use.

Type
Plenary Speeches
Information
Language Teaching , Volume 43 , Issue 2 , April 2010 , pp. 168 - 181
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

AEBC (Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Committee) (2003). GM nation? The findings of the public debate. http://www.aebc.gov.uk/aebc/reports/gm_nation_report_final.pdf.Google Scholar
Ambler-Edwards, S., Bailey, K., Alexandra, K., Lang, T., Lee, R., Marsden, T., Simons, D. & Tibbs, H. (2009). Food futures: Rethinking UK strategy (Chatham House Report). London: Chatham House.Google Scholar
Bakhtin, M. M. (1984). Rabelais and his world. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Blair, T. (2002). Science matters. Speech to The Royal Society. http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page1715.Google Scholar
Block, D. (2008). On the appropriateness of the metaphor of LOSS. In Rubdy, R. & Tan, P. (eds.), Language as commodity: Global structures, local marketplaces. London: Continuum, 187–203.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice (translated by Nice, R.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brumfit, C. J. (1995). Teacher professionalism and research. In Cook, G. & Seidlhofer, B. (eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 27–41.Google Scholar
Cook, G. (2003). Applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cook, G. (2004). Genetically modified language. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, G. (2007a). It's only bacon for God's sake. Beyond the Spin 17 October 2007 (special issue: Food), 5–7.Google Scholar
Cook, G. (2007b). Organic shoppers want facts, not just stories. Organic and Natural Business August–September 2007, 6–7.Google Scholar
Cook, G. (2007c). ‘This we have done’: The different vagueness of poetry and PR. In Cutting, J. (ed.), Vague language explored. London: Palgrave, 21–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, G. (2008). Hysteria and hyperbole – which side is it on? In Thomas (ed.), 30–35.Google Scholar
Cook, G. (2009). Sense about science. The Ecologist February 2009, 82.Google Scholar
Cook, G. & O'Halloran, K. (1999). Label literacy: Factors affecting the understanding and assessment of baby food labels. In O'Brien, T. (ed.), Language and literacies (BAAL Studies in Applied Linguistics 14). Clevedon: BAAL in association with Multilingual Matters, 145–157.Google Scholar
Cook, G., Pieri, E. & Robbins, P. T. (2004). ‘The scientists think and the public feels’: Expert perceptions of the discourse of GM food. Discourse and Society 15.4, 433–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, G., Reed, M. & Twiner, A. (2009). ‘But it's all true!’: Commercialism and commitment in the discourse of organic food promotion. Text and Talk 29.2, 151–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, G., Robbins, P. T. & Pieri, E. (2006). ‘Words of mass destruction’: British newspaper coverage of the GM food debate, and expert and non-expert reactions. Public Understanding of Science 15.1, 5–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, V. (2002). The functions of invented sentences: A reply to Guy Cook. Applied Linguistics 23.2, 263–272.Google Scholar
Fromartz, S. (2006). Organic, INC. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brown.Google Scholar
Gregory, J. & Miller, S. (1998). Science in public. Cambridge, MA: Perseus.Google Scholar
Lawrence, F. (2004). Not on the label. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
May, Lord R. (2002). How to choose tomorrow, rather than just letting it happen, as scientific understanding advances. Oxford Presidential Anniversary Address to the Royal Society 2002. http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/royalsoc/AnniversaryAddress2002.Google Scholar
Monbiot, G. (2000). Beware the appliance of science. The Guardian 24 February 2000.Google Scholar
Rayson, P. C. D. (2008). Wmatrix: A web-based corpus processing environment http://ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/wmatrix/.Google Scholar
Robbins, P. T., Pieri, E. & Cook, G. (2004). GM scientists and the politics of the risk society. In Haugestad, A. K. & Wulfhorst, J. D. (eds.), Future as fairness: Ecological justice & global citizenship. Amsterdam & New York: Rodopi Press, 85–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, M. (2005). Help menu. Wordsmith Tools. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://www.lexically.net/wordsmith.Google Scholar
Stubbs, M. (2001). Words and phrases. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Talbot, M. (2007). Media discourse: Representation and interaction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, P. (ed.) (2008). GM seeds of change or fool's gold. Special issue of The Ecologist November 2008.Google Scholar
Tormey, S. (2007). Consumption, resistance and everyday life: Ruptures and continuities. Journal of Consumer Policy 30.3, 63–280.Google Scholar
Vickers, B. (1988). In defence of rhetoric. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
WHO (World Health Organization) (1981). The international code of marketing of breastmilk substitutes. http://www.ibfan.org/site2005/Pages/article.php?art_id=52&iui=1.Google Scholar
Wynne, B. (2001). Creating public alienation: Expert cultures of risk and ethics on GMOs. Science as Culture 10.4, 445–481.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed