Search

Discursive othering deals with the many ways in which language is used to express prejudice against minorities, and it outlines the processes and conditions that promote group-based inequality and marginalization. This article focuses on online othering, and it analyzes a corpus of 615 comments posted by Hong Kong employers of domestic migrant workers (DMWs) on social media. First, a quantitative analysis of the corpus outlines the content categories found in the posts, and second, a discourse analysis of representative excerpts illustrates the claims made about DMWs. Employers engage in othering of their helpers, and the analysis shows how demeaning racist comments function to publicly shame them and warn others not to employ them. The article uses Language and Social Psychology frameworks to analyze the posts, and it discusses the functions of using racist derogatory language. The paper concludes by discussing how research may be used to address pressing social issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the last decades, the use of explicit derogatory language (e.g., hate speech, slurs, micro-insults) has risen in many countries. We provide an overview on blatant language discrimination, including its psychological antecedents and consequences. After presenting a working definition of derogatory language and describing its prevalence, we discuss the social functions it serves and the role it plays in identity protection, in legitimizing group hierarchies, and in establishing and enforcing group norms. Drawing from both the socio-cognitive and discursive traditions in social psychology, it is argued that the language people are exposed to and the language they employ, shape the way they think and construct reality. We also consider two ways in which targeted groups may respond to derogatory language, specifically confrontation and reappropriation. Finally, we address challenges for future research, in particular the need for more cross disciplinary research to ebb the growing proliferation of hate speech on digital media which has become a global international concern. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research suggests that racial slurs may be "reclaimed" by the targeted group to convey affiliation rather than derogation. Although it is most common in intragroup uses (e.g., "nigga" by a Black individual toward another Black individual), intergroup examples of slur reappropriation (e.g., "nigga" by a Black individual toward a White individual) are also common. However, majority and minority group members' perceptions of intergroup slur reappropriation remain untested. We examined White (Study 1) and Black (Study 2) individuals' perceptions of the reappropriated terms, "nigga" and "nigger" compared with a control term chosen to be a non-race-related, neutral term ("buddy"), a nonracial derogative term ("asshole") and a White racial slur ("cracker") used by a Black individual toward a White individual. We found that the intergroup use of reappropriated slurs was perceived quite positively by both White and Black individuals. Our findings have important implications for research on intergroup relations and the reappropriation of slurs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

By using a pseudoword paradigm, we tested whether derogatory labels (e.g., pejorative labels addressing group members) differed from category labels and general slur in their descriptive (i.e., pointing to group membership) and expressive functions (i.e., perceived offensiveness and social acceptability). Results indicated that derogatory labels were similar to category labels in their descriptive function, and had higher expressive function than slurs. Participants' prejudice toward the groups that were targets of derogatory label reduced their perceived offensiveness than in turn increased their social acceptability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Prior research has documented that nonstandard ways of speaking can be subject to discrimination, and that nonstandard speakers are aware of the biases toward their accents. However, few studies have investigated the consequences of this for the stigmatized speaker. The objectives of this study are to explore how perceived legitimacy of discrimination moderates the relationship between perceived accent discrimination and the following two variables: (a) situated francophone identity and (b) French language confidence. Participants were nonnative (n = 113) and native (n = 225) speakers of French who completed questionnaires assessing the above constructs. Moderated regression analyses revealed that language discrimination is significantly and negatively related to language confidence. For native speakers from a high vitality region, legitimacy was found to moderate the relation between language discrimination and identity. When discrimination was perceived to be less legitimate, the relation between perceived discrimination and situated identity was positive. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article investigates “meta-sexist” talk in U.S. media discussions regarding Hillary Rodham Clinton’s failed bid for the U.S. Democratic nomination in 2007-2008. More specifically, it describes how specific accusations/claims of “sexist” treatment of Clinton were introduced, debated, and ultimately evaluated during significant moments in the course of her campaign. Drawing on a collection of 24 televised interactions in which “sexism” was explicitly topicalized in relation to Clinton’s campaign, the analysis describes how interviewers respond to participants’ claims of “sexist” treatment of Clinton within two periods in the nominating process—when Clinton was reported by mainstream media as the undisputed front-runner, and when she was reported as losing. In illustrating the general features of the interviewers’ responsive behavior characteristic of each period, the analysis reveals some of the ways in which the legitimacy of “sexist” claims may be undermined by mainstream media. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Feminists have long recognised important relationships between language and a gendered social order that disadvantages women. At the establishment of gender and language as a field of academic inquiry, work documented sexism in language—the ways words were used to ignore, narrowly define, or demean women. Using feminist conversation analysis, this article further develops that early work by considering recorded instances of gender and sexism in talk. A broad notion of “gender trouble” was used to identify 50 relevant cases from everyday interactions. Two sexist language issues that were evident in the collection are presented in this article—the derogation of women and participants’ orientations to gender inclusiveness. The analysis contributes to a better understanding of sexism in language by examining how instances of it unfold over turns of talk. The study is discussed with respect to the methodological tensions inherent in feminist conversation analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]