Book contents
- The Grammar of Hate
- The Grammar of Hate
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction
- 1 Animacy and Countability of Slurs
- 2 Language Aggression in English Slang: The Case of the -o Suffix
- 3 Adj+ie/y Nominalizations in Contemporary English
- 4 Grammatical Gender and Offensiveness in Modern Greek Slang Vocabulary
- 5 Unseen Gender
- 6 The Neutering Neuter
- 7 Neutering Unpopular Politicians
- 8 The Power of a Pronoun
- 9 Is Play on Words Fair Play or Dirty Play?
- 10 Expressive German Adjective and Noun Compounds in Aggressive Discourse
- 11 ‘Kill the Invaders’
- 12 ‘I am no racist but …’
- 13 Homophobic Space–Times
- Index
- References
2 - Language Aggression in English Slang: The Case of the -o Suffix
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 30 June 2022
Edited by
Book contents
- The Grammar of Hate
- The Grammar of Hate
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction
- 1 Animacy and Countability of Slurs
- 2 Language Aggression in English Slang: The Case of the -o Suffix
- 3 Adj+ie/y Nominalizations in Contemporary English
- 4 Grammatical Gender and Offensiveness in Modern Greek Slang Vocabulary
- 5 Unseen Gender
- 6 The Neutering Neuter
- 7 Neutering Unpopular Politicians
- 8 The Power of a Pronoun
- 9 Is Play on Words Fair Play or Dirty Play?
- 10 Expressive German Adjective and Noun Compounds in Aggressive Discourse
- 11 ‘Kill the Invaders’
- 12 ‘I am no racist but …’
- 13 Homophobic Space–Times
- Index
- References
Summary
Slang is generally considered an unconventional vocabulary characterized by connotations of novelty, informality, and even derogatoriness or offensiveness. As such, it can be used as means of social exclusion and verbal aggression. The derogatory character of slang is particularly evident in its innovatory lexicon, as well as in the metaphorical extensions of its vocabulary. This study adopts a morphopragmatic approach to analyse slang words. In particular, it focuses on the usage of the suffix -o in offensive and aggressive contexts with nefarious intent, as in the words sicko, lesbo, or commo. The study is both dictionary-driven and corpus-based. Data selected from Green’s Dictionary of Slang have been collected in order to investigate how the -o suffix is utilized in hate communication to denigrate, dehumanize, and marginalize groups or individuals. Contextualized examples from COCA are analysed from the quantitative and qualitative viewpoints with the aims to: 1) identify the genres and environments where the -o suffix finds its preferred application, 2) investigate the most common collocational patterns where slang -o words convey a pragmatic meaning [aggressive], and 3) show the specific connotational meanings/pragmatic effects contributed by the -o suffix.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Grammar of HateMorphosyntactic Features of Hateful, Aggressive, and Dehumanizing Discourse, pp. 34 - 58Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
Allen, I. L. (1998). Slang: Sociology. In Mey, J. L. and Asher, R. E. (eds.), Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 878–883.Google Scholar
Appah, C. K. I., and Amfo, N. A. A. (2011). The morphopragmatics of the diminutive morpheme (-ba/-wa) in Akan. Lexis [Online], 6, 85–103. Available at http://journals.openedition.org/lexis/437. DOI: 10.4000/lexis.437.Google Scholar
Bazzanella, C., Caffi, C., and Sbisà, M. (1991). Scalar dimensions in illocutionary force. In Zagar, I. Z. (ed.), Speech Acts: Fiction or Reality? Ljubljana: Institute for Social Sciences, pp. 63–76.Google Scholar
Caffi, C. (2001). La mitigazione: Un approccio pragmatico alla comunicazione nei contesti terapeutici. Munster: Lit.Google Scholar
Crocco Galéas, G. (1992). Gli etnici italiani: Studio di morfologia naturale. Padova: Unipress.Google Scholar
Davies, M. (2008–). Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA). Available at https://corpus.byu.edu/coca/Google Scholar
Dressler, W. U., and Kiefer, F. (1990). Austro-Hungarian morphopragmatics. In Dressler, W. U. et al. (eds.), Contemporary Morphology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 69–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dressler, W. U., and Kilani-Schoch, M. (1994). Morphopragmatique interactionnelle: Les formations en -o du français branché. In Tonelli, L. and Dressler, W. U. (eds.), Natural Morphology: Perspectives for the Nineties. Padua: Unipress, pp. 31–52.Google Scholar
Dressler, W. U., and Merlini Barbaresi, L. (1986). How to fix interfixes? Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 36, 53–68.Google Scholar
Dressler, W. U., and Merlini Barbaresi, L. (1987). Elements of morphopragmatics. In Verschueren, J. (ed.), Levels of Linguistic Adaptation. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 33–51.Google Scholar
Dressler, W. U., and Merlini Barbaresi, L. (1994). Morphopragmatics: Diminutives and Intensifiers in Italian, German, and Other Languages. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dumas, B. K., and Lighter, J. (1978). Is slang a word for linguistics? American Speech, 53, 5–17.Google Scholar
Eble, C. (1996). Slang and Sociability: In-Group Language among College Students. Chapel Hill/London: The University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Erjavec, K., and Kovačič, M. P. (2012). ‘You don’t understand, this is a new war!’ Analysis of hate speech in news web sites’ comments. Mass Communication and Society, 15(6), 899–920.Google Scholar
Green, J. (2020). Green’s Dictionary of Slang. Available at https://greensdictofslang.com/Google Scholar
Hamans, C. (2020). How an ‘Italian’ suffix became productive in Germanic languages. In Ten Hacken, P. and Panokova, R. (ed.), The Interaction of Borrowing and Word Formation. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 140–161.Google Scholar
Hamilton, M. A. (2012). Verbal aggression: Understanding the psychological antecedents and social consequences. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 31(1), 5–12.Google Scholar
Hill, J. H. (1995). Mock Spanish: A site for the indexical reproduction of racism in American English. Language and Culture: Symposium 2. Available at https://language-culture.binghamton.edu/symposia/2/part1/Google Scholar
Huddleston, R., and Pullum, G. K (2002). The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Infante, D. A., Rancer, A. S., and Wigley, C. J. (2011). In defense of the argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness scales. Communication Quarterly, 59, 145–154.Google Scholar
Kádár, D. Z., Parvaresh, V., and Ning, P. (2019). Morality, moral order, and language conflict and aggression: A position paper. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict, 7(1), 6–31.Google Scholar
Kilani-Schoch, M., and Dressler, W. U. (1992). Prol-o, intell-o, gauch-o et les autres: Propriétés formelles de deux opérations du français parlé. Romanistisches Jahrbuch, 43, 65–86.Google Scholar
Knoblock, N. (2017). Xenophobic Trumpeters: A corpus-assisted discourse study of Donald Trump’s Facebook conversations. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict, 5(2), 295–322.Google Scholar
Mattiello, E. (2008). An Introduction to English Slang: A Description of Its Morphology, Semantics and Sociology. Monza: Polimetrica.Google Scholar
Mattiello, E. (2013). Extra-Grammatical Morphology in English: Abbreviations, Blends, Reduplicatives, and Related Phenomena. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Merlini Barbaresi, L. (1997). Modification of speech acts: Aggravation and mitigation. In Caron, B. (ed.), Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Linguists. Electronic Edition, Oxford: Elsevier, paper n. 0353.Google Scholar
Merlini Barbaresi, L. (2001). The pragmatics of the ‘diminutive’ -y/ie suffix in English. In Schaner-Wolles, C., Rennison, J., and Neubarth, F. (eds.), Naturally! Torino: Rosenberg and Sellier, pp. 315–326.Google Scholar
Merlini Barbaresi, L. (2006). Morphopragmatics. In Brown, K. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Second Edition, Volume 8. Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 332–335.Google Scholar
Merlini Barbaresi, L., and Dressler, W. U. (2020). Pragmatic explanations in morphology. In Pirrelli, V., Plag, I., and Dressler, W. U. (eds.), Word Knowledge and Word Usage: A Cross-disciplinary Guide to the Mental Lexicon. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 405–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miró-Llinares, F., Moneva, A., and Esteve, M. (2018). Hate is in the air! But where? Introducing an algorithm to detect hate speech in digital microenvironments. Crime Science, 7(1), 1–12.Google Scholar
Munro, P. (ed.) (2001). U.C.L.A. Slang 4. Los Angeles: Department of Linguistics, University of California.Google Scholar
Oksanen, A., Hawdon, J., Holkeri, E., Näsi, M., and Räsänen, P. (2014). Exposure to online hate among young social media users. In Warehime, M. N. (ed.), Soul of Society: A Focus on the Lives of Children and Youth. Bingley: Emerald, pp. 253–273.Google Scholar
Sornig, K. (1981). Lexical Innovation: A Study of Slang, Colloquialisms and Casual Speech. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Stenström, A.-B. (2000). From slang to slanguage: A description based on teenage talk. In Kis, T. (ed.), Mi a szleng? Debrecen: Kossuth Lajos University Press, pp. 89–108.Google Scholar
Stenström, A-B., Andersen, G., and Hasund, I. K. (2002). Trends in Teenage Talk: Corpus Compilation, Analysis and Findings. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Zhang, Z., Robinson, D., and Tepper, J. (2018). Detecting hate speech on twitter using a convolution-LSTM based deep neural network. In Gangemi, A., Navigli, R., Vidal, M. E., Hitzler, P., Troncy, R., Hollink, L., Tordai, A., and Alam, M. (eds.), The Semantic Web, ESWC 2018, 3–7 June 2018, Heraklion, Greece. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 10843. Springer Verlag, pp. 745–760. Available at https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93417-4_48Google Scholar
- 2
- Cited by