The Dimensions of Slurs: Expressive vs. Descriptive Aspects

Investigating the dual nature of slurs, this study delves into the expressive and descriptive dimensions of derogatory terms. Through experimental evidence and linguistic analysis, it explores how slurs convey both speaker-centered emotions and objective information about targeted groups. The research illuminates the complexities of language use in slurs, shedding light on their impact and implications in social contexts.

• Slurs
• Linguistic Analysis
• Expressive Language
• Descriptive Content
• Experimental Evidence

avyukthm Follow

Uploaded on Sep 17, 2024 | 0 Views

Download Presentation

Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.

The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

Presentation Transcript

1. YOU CALLED HER A WHAT?! EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE FOR THE EXPRESSIVE AND DESCRIPTIVE DIMENSIONS OF SLURS Talia Lang Rutgers University New Brunswick Undergraduate Senior Honors Thesis Rutgers Laboratory for Developmental Language Studies

2. SLURS Hermione (Muggleborn) Derogatory term that refers to a target group bitch (woman) nigger (African American) kike (Jewish) faggot (LGBT+) Draco (Pureblood) target group Muggleborn = parents are Muggles Croom (2013), Pullum (2018) slur Mudblood 2

3. SLURS ARE DESCRIPTIVE Hermione (Muggleborn) Slurs entail truth-conditional, descriptive content 1. Draco: #Hermione is a Mudblood, but I deny saying that her parents are Muggles. Draco (Pureblood) target group 2. Draco: I broke my damn broomstick, but I deny saying anything about the broomstick besides that it is broken. Muggleborn = parents are Muggles Croom (2013) slur Mudblood 3

4. SLURS ARE EXPRESSIVE Hermione (Muggleborn) Projective, speaker-oriented, expressive, not-at-issue content 1. Draco: Hermione s mom said that Mudblood Hermione is a good witch. Draco (Pureblood) target group 2. Draco: Hermione s mom said that moron Hermione is a good witch. Muggleborn = parents are Muggles Croom (2013), Tonhauser, Roberts, Beaver & Simons (2013), Karttunen (1973a), Karttunen (2016), Potts (2015), Potts (2007a) slur Mudblood 4

5. SLURS ARE EXPRESSIVE Hermione (Muggleborn) Projective, speaker-oriented, expressive, not-at-issue content 1. Draco: Hermione s mom said that Mudblood Hermione is a good witch. Draco (Pureblood) target group 2. Draco: Hermione s mom said that moron Hermione is a good witch. Muggleborn = parents are Muggles scopal operator Croom (2013), Tonhauser, Roberts, Beaver & Simons (2013), Karttunen (1973a), Karttunen (2016), Potts (2015), Potts (2007a) slur Mudblood 5

6. Draco: Hermione is a Mudblood. Hermione (Muggleborn) Draco: Hermione is a Muggleborn and despicable because of it. Mudblood = Muggleborn and despicable because of it Draco (Pureblood) target group Muggleborn = parents are Muggles nonpejorative correlate Croom (2013), Spotorno & Bianchi (2015), Cepollaro (2015), Hom (2008), Hom & May (2018) slur Mudblood 6

7. SLUR THEORIES Non-content-based Narrow/semantic content-based Hom (2008), Hom & May (2018) Wide/pragmatic content-based Cepollaro (2015), Whiting (2013), Bolinger (2017), Bianchi (2018), Kirk- Giannini (2019), Gutzmann (2015) Spotorno & Bianchi (2015) Nonpejorative correlate Anderson & Lepore (2013) Counterargument Bianchi (2014), Cepollaro & Thommen (2019), Bianchi (2014), Spotorno & Bianchi (2015) Spotorno & Bianchi (2015) 7

8. SLUR THEORIES Non-content-based Narrow/semantic content-based Wide/pragmatic content-based Nonpejorative correlate Mudblood = Muggleborn & social taboo Counterargument 8

9. SLUR THEORIES Non-content-based Narrow/semantic content-based Wide/pragmatic content-based Nonpejorative correlate Mudblood = Muggleborn & social taboo Counterargument Appropriation Insults Appropriation Hermione: I m proud of being a Mudblood! Insults Draco: Hermione is a bastard. 9

10. SLUR THEORIES Non-content-based Narrow/semantic content-based Mudblood = Muggleborn and despicable because of it Wide/pragmatic content-based Nonpejorative correlate Mudblood = Muggleborn & social taboo Counterargument Appropriation Insults 10

11. SLUR THEORIES Non-content-based Narrow/semantic content-based Mudblood = Muggleborn and despicable because of it Wide/pragmatic content-based Nonpejorative correlate Mudblood = Muggleborn & social taboo Counterargument Appropriation Appropriation Negation Insults Appropriation Hermione: I m proud of being a Mudblood! Negation Hermione is a Mudblood = Hermione is a Muggleborn and therefore despicable Hermione is a Mudblood =/= Hermione is a Muggleborn and therefore despicable still derogatory not derogatory 11

12. SLUR THEORIES Non-content-based Narrow/semantic content-based Mudblood = Muggleborn and despicable because of it Wide/pragmatic content-based Mudblood = Muggleborn Nonpejorative correlate Mudblood = Muggleborn & social taboo & presupposition, conventional implicature Counterargument Appropriation Appropriation Negation Insults 12

13. SLUR THEORIES Non-content-based Narrow/semantic content-based Mudblood = Muggleborn and despicable because of it Wide/pragmatic content-based Mudblood = Muggleborn Nonpejorative correlate Mudblood = Muggleborn & social taboo & presupposition, conventional implicature Counterargument Appropriation Appropriation Negation Insults 13

14. CURRENT STUDY 14

15. RESEARCH QUESTIONS Does slurs expressive content project? Experiments 1 & 2 Do slurs defy direct rejection? Experiments 3 & 4 15

16. EXPERIMENTS 1 & 2 16

17. SAMPLE TRIAL Background: Mudblood is a derogatory term that frequently refers to Muggleborns. Person A is not a Muggleborn. Person A s neighbor is not a Muggleborn. Person A: My friend knows that my neighbor is a Mudblood. Evaluate this statement: Person A is committed to a belief that certain people are despicable because they are Muggleborns. [Agree/Disagree] 17

18. SAMPLE TRIAL Background: Mudblood is a derogatory term that frequently refers to Muggleborns. Person A is not a Muggleborn. Person A s neighbor is not a Muggleborn. Person A: My friend knows that my neighbor is a Mudblood. expressive content projects Evaluate this statement: Person A is committed to a belief that certain people are despicable because they are Muggleborns. [Agree/Disagree] 18

19. SAMPLE TRIAL Background: Mudblood is a derogatory term that frequently refers to Muggleborns. Person A is not a Muggleborn. Person A s neighbor is not a Muggleborn. Person A: My friend knows that my neighbor is a Mudblood. expressive content does not project Evaluate this statement: Person A is committed to a belief that certain people are despicable because they are Muggleborns. [Agree/Disagree] 19

20. HYPOTHESES Verb of saying Factive verb Propositional negation My neighbor is not a Mudblood. My neighbor is a Pureblood. Projection Metalinguistic negation My neighbor is not a Mudblood. My neighbor is a Muggleborn. No projection Stimulus My friend said that my neighbor is a Mudblood. My friend knows that my neighbor is a Mudblood. Hypothesis Presupposition: no projection Conventional implicature: projection Projection Karttunen (1973a), Karttunen (2016), Potts (2015), Potts (2007a) 20

21. RESULTS 21

22. Slur Insult 90 PERCENTAGES OF SPEAKER-ORIENTATION 85.5 80.7 80 70 62.7 58.3 60 56.1 50 41.2 40 30 19.3 20 12.3 10 0 Verb of saying Factive verb Propositional negation Metalinguistic negation

23. Presupposition Appositive 100 PERCENTAGES OF SPEAKER-ORIENTATION 95.5 90 85.1 84.3 78.4 80 76.1 73.9 70 60 50 40 37.3 32.8 30 20 10 0 23 Verb of saying Factive verb Propositional negation Metalinguistic negation

24. Appositives PERCENTAGES OF SPEAKER-ORIENTATION Nominal Full appositive relative clause (front) Full appositive relative clause (back) Presuppositions manage again Possessive stop 100 100 100 100 96.7 96.7 94 94.1 93.9 93.3 93.3 91 90.9 90 90 83.8 83.8 78.4 80 67.6 70 66.7 64.2 62.2 60 48.5 50 38.2 37.8 37.3 40 33.3 27.3 30 20 11.8 8.8 10 0 Verb of saying Factive verb Propositional Metalinguistic negation Verb of saying Factive verb Propositional Metalinguistic negation negation negation

25. Can Mudblood Refer to Someone Who Is Not a Muggleborn? Agree PERCENTAGES OF AGREEMENT Gender/sex(uality) Slurs Disagree 80 70 75.4 60.6 70 60 53.4 52.3 60 50 54.4 50 40 43.9 34.2 40 30 29.8 30 20 16.1 11.3 20 10 10 0 Gender/sex(uality) Racial/ethnic SLUR Religious 0 25 bitch dyke faggot slut

26. Draco, a Pureblood, calls Hermione, a Muggleborn, a Mudblood Extremely inappropriate Very inappropriate Slightly inappropriate Not inappropriate at all PERCENTAGE Moderately inappropriate 60 54.6 50 49.6 50 40 29.8 30 27.6 25.4 25.1 23 20 17.7 17.5 16.7 16.3 14.9 10.1 10 7.1 4.8 3.5 3.1 2.2 0.9 0 26 Gender/sex(uality) slur Racial/ethnic slur Religious slur Known insult

27. CONCLUSIONS Slurs and insults were comparably speaker-oriented Propositional negation was misunderstood Verb of saying hypotheses were nearly at-chance Control items were comparable because of within- category variability Bitch was close to appropriation Slurs were more offensive than insults 27

28. EXPERIMENTS 3 & 4 28

29. SAMPLE TRIAL Background: Mudblood is a derogatory term that frequently refers to Muggleborns. Person A is talking to Person B about Person A's coworker. Person A: That Mudblood mowed her lawn yesterday. If you were Person B, what would you say to disagree with Person A? [I would say/I would not say] 29

30. RESPONSE OPTIONS Sentence 1: Direct or Indirect That s not appropriate. or Hey, wait a minute. Sentence 2 No repetition, use-focus Repetition, use-focus She s a Muggleborn. She s not a Mudblood , she s Repetition, application-focus She s not a Mudblood. a Muggleborn. Use-focus: You can t use that word, that s a slur. (metalinguistic negation) Application-focus:Hermione isn t a Mudblood, but my neighbor is. (propositional negation) Croom (2013), Syrett & Koev (2015) 30

31. HYPOTHESES 1. If slurs derogatory content is not-at-issue, then indirect responses will be preferred 2. If slurs are ineffable, then no repetition responses will be preferred 3. If there is a desire to be unambiguously socially correct, then use-focus responses will be preferred Croom (2013), Syrett & Koev (2015), Anderson & Lepore (2013) 31

32. RESULTS 32

33. Percentages of Types of Rejection Insult Presupposition Slur Appositive At-issue 68.9 70 64.7 63.5 62.8 62.2 60.8 60 55 52.6 48.3 50 47.6 44.4 44.4 44.2 44.1 43.1 40 30 20 10 0 Direct rejection Use-focus rejection Repetition rejection

34. CONCLUSIONS Slurs elicited more direct, use-focus, repetition rejection than insults Control items were comparable in eliciting more indirect, use-focus, no repetition rejection 34

35. GENERAL DISCUSSION 35

36. IMPLICATIONS Slurs are as speaker-oriented as insults, but more offensive Verb of saying hypotheses require more study Despite their derogatory content being not-at-issue, slurs are so derogatory as to warrant direct rejection Repetition rejections may be different if spoken aloud Propositional and metalinguistic negation are distinguishable but misunderstood Slurs closer to appropriation elicit different responses Unfamiliar slurs should be weeded out prior to study 36

37. SOME OPEN QUESTIONS How does this fit in with appropriation? Are slurs of different demographics, different linguistically? Do Mudbloods exist? Do slurs have family resemblance categories? 37

38. Rutgers Laboratory for Developmental Language Studies THANK YOU RUTGERS UNIVERSITY NEW BRUNSWICK LINGUISTICS DEPARTMENT THESIS ADVISOR DR. KRISTEN SYRETT STATISTICAL ANALYSIS YISHA YAO CULC14 CORNELL UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF LINGUISTICS 38

39. 39

40. EXPERIMENT 1: STIMULI, SLUR Lexical category Gender/sex(uality) Lexical item and paper where discussed bitch (Croom 2013), dyke (Blakemore 2015), faggot (Croom 2013), slut (Croom 2013) boche (Anderson & Lepore 2013), curry muncher (DiFranco 2015), honky (Potts 2007b), nigger (Croom 2013) kike (Anderson & Lepore 2013), papist, proddie, towelhead Invented/potentially new illegal (Kukla 2018), kukker (DiFranco 2017), mudblood, thug (Kukla 2018) Racial/ethnic Religious Diaz Legaspe (2018) 40

41. EXPERIMENT 1: STIMULI, INSULT Lexical category Lexical item and paper where discussed Familiar bastard (Potts 2007b) douchebag (James 1998) fucker (Croom 2013) piece of shit (Blakemore 2015) Invented alienist Bambi killer dung eater nerf herder 41

42. EXPERIMENT 2: STIMULI Control type Presupposition Lexical item and paper where discussed my (possessive) again stop manage Nominal appositive my hairdresser, an appositive, x (Syrett & Koev 2015) Full appositive relative clause (Syrett & Koev 2015) my hairdresser has a x, who appositive (end of statement) (Syrett & Koev 2015) my hairdresser, who appositive, x (front of statement) 42

43. EXPERIMENT 3: STIMULI, SLUR Lexical category Gender/sex(uality) bitch (Croom 2013), dyke (Blakemore 2015), faggot (Croom 2013), slut (Croom 2013) Racial/ethnic boche (Anderson & Lepore 2013), curry muncher (DiFranco 2015), honky (Potts 2007b), nigger (Croom 2013) Religious kike (Anderson & Lepore 2013), papist, proddie, towelhead, thug (Kukla 2018) Lexical item and paper where discussed Diaz Legaspe (2018) 43

44. EXPERIMENT 3: STIMULI, INSULT Lexical category Lexical item and paper where discussed Familiar bastard (Potts 2007b) douchebag (James 1998) fucker (Croom 2013) piece of shit (Blakemore 2015) 44

45. EXPERIMENT 4: STIMULI Control type Presupposition Lexical item and paper where discussed my (possessive) again stop manage Nominal appositive my aunt, an appositive, x (Syrett & Koev 2015) Full appositive relative clause my aunt has a x, who appositive (end of statement) (Syrett & Koev 2015) At-issue my aunt x ed (past tense) my aunt, who appositive, x (front of statement) (Syrett & Koev 2015) 45