Search

Silence can be a communicative act. Tanesini (2018) demonstrates how “eloquent” silences can virtuously indicate resistance and dissent; in this paper, I outline one way silence can also be used viciously to cause discursive harm, specifically by slurring victims. By distinguishing between eloquent and “signaling” silences (two kinds of what I call “performative” silences), I show how “slurring” silences — fully quiet discursive moves that signal one's commitment to a slurring perspective — function in a manner that illuminates the pragmatic topography of conversational silence in general. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

I argue that “general pejoratives” such as “jerk” or “bastard” differ crucially from items such as “that damn N”. While items such as the latter typically serve to give vent to one's attitudes, general pejoratives essentially involve judgments about a person's behaviour or character. This is particularly evident in cases where pejoratives occur not as epithets, but as predicate nominals. If we want to account for the overall contribution of words such as “jerk”, there are three kinds of content that ought to be distinguished: truth‐conditional contents, evaluative presuppositions, and expressive contents that are either at‐issue (in the case of expressive predicates) or non‐at‐issue (in the case of epithets). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We investigate experimentally whether the perceived offensiveness of slurs survives when they are reported, by comparing Italian slurs and insults in base utterances (Y is an S), direct speech (X said: "Y is an S"), mixed quotation (X said that Y is "an S"), and indirect speech (X said that Y is an S). For all strategies, reporting decreases the perceived offensiveness without removing it. For slurs, but not insults, indirect speech is perceived as more offensive than direct speech. Our hypothesis is that, because slurs constitute hate speech, speakers employ quotation marks to signal their dissociation from slur use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the concept of trans language activism (TLA) and its role in achieving sociolinguistic justice for trans communities. The author argues that TLA should not only challenge misogyny, heteronormativity, and transphobia, but also address other systems of oppression such as ableism, capitalism, colonialism, fatphobia, HIV status, imperialism, incarceration, Islamophobia, poverty, racism, sexism, Survivorship, and xenophobia. The article emphasizes the importance of creating safe spaces for language play and collective discussion, as well as the need for political education to connect forms of oppression across different identities and geographies. The concept of euphoric transmutation is introduced as a strategy for liberation through language, involving the play, juxtaposition, innovation, and resignification of lexicon to challenge hegemonic power. The article also proposes the creation of a multilingual database to compare and name systems of oppression, promoting linguistic materialism and self-determination. Overall, the article advocates for TLA to center the joyful self-determination of oppressed people and promote linguistic innovation for collective liberation. [Extracted from the article]

The article discusses the importance of language activism in relation to the transgender community. It highlights the changes in norms around gender-inclusive language and the innovations in linguistic forms by trans, queer, and gender nonconforming individuals. The article emphasizes the need for intersectional coalitions in addressing linguistic issues faced by trans people, as transphobia is intensified by other forms of oppression. It also explores the challenges faced by trans language activism, including limited circulation, language ideologies, and the unequal impact of trans-affirming language. The article concludes by discussing the complex relationship between trans-affirming language and resistance to colonialism and cultural imperialism. [Extracted from the article]

The article discusses the complexities of using language to describe transgender individuals in different cultural contexts. It highlights examples of debates surrounding the use of pronouns and terminology, such as the case of a Japanese trans man being referred to as "she" in an article. The author argues that while trans-affirming language is important, it should be understood within its sociocultural context and not imposed universally. The article calls for a recognition of diverse perspectives and a move away from Eurocentric thinking in discussions of trans issues. [Extracted from the article]

Copyright of Policy & Internet is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article discusses the concept of trans language activism (TLA) and its role in achieving sociolinguistic justice for trans communities. The author argues that TLA should not only challenge misogyny, heteronormativity, and transphobia, but also address other systems of oppression such as ableism, capitalism, colonialism, fatphobia, HIV status, imperialism, incarceration, Islamophobia, poverty, racism, sexism, Survivorship, and xenophobia. The article emphasizes the importance of creating safe spaces for language play and collective discussion, as well as the need for political education to connect forms of oppression across different identities and geographies. The concept of euphoric transmutation is introduced as a strategy for liberation through language, involving the play, juxtaposition, innovation, and resignification of lexicon to challenge hegemonic power. The article also proposes the creation of a multilingual database to compare and name systems of oppression, promoting linguistic materialism and self-determination. Overall, the article advocates for TLA to center the joyful self-determination of oppressed people and promote linguistic innovation for collective liberation. [Extracted from the article]

Exposure to hate speech (HS) leads to desensitization of listeners. Yet, most evidence of this process has been obtained using self‐report measures. In this paper, we examined desensitization to HS using an unobtrusive, psychophysiological measure. In an experimental electrocardiogram study (N = 56), we observed heart rate (HR) deceleration after reading comments that contained HS. This suggested a substantive psychophysiological reaction of participants to hateful comments. However, such HR deceleration was not observed among participants preexposed to HS. People exposed to hateful comments thus appeared to show different HR responses to HS compared to people who were not previously exposed to such comments. Consequently, not only does frequent exposure to HS influence an individual's beliefs as observed in earlier studies, but it also impacts psychophysiological reactions to derogatory language. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A very common argument against restrictions on hate speech says that since such restrictions curtail freedom of speech, they cause more harm than they prevent. A no less common reply has it that the harms caused by hate speech are sufficiently great to justify legal restrictions on free speech. In 'Freedom of Expression and Derogatory Words', West questions a common assumption of both arguments concerning the use of slurs, i.e. that restricting the use of slurs necessarily curtails freedom of speech. According to West, everything that can be said with a slur can be said with its neutral counterpart. Given the psychological and social harms of slurs, this would give us a compelling reason to put legal restrictions on their use. However, in this article, I will argue that, according to the main theories of slurs, slurs can be used to express derogatory information which cannot be expressed by their neutral counterparts. This will leave us with two options when it comes to avoiding the negative effects of slurs: (i) to restrict freedom of speech or (ii) to argue that the derogatory information expressed by slurs is not covered by free speech. Both options will depart significantly from West's argument. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Advancing, both conceptually and practically, the equality, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) agenda, which is notoriously difficult to implement, this paper addresses the under‐researched area of global diversity management (GDM) in multinational companies (MNCs). Drawing on Harrison and Klein's (2007) conceptualisations of diversity (separation, variety, and disparity) and two core concepts (fluidity and reciprocity) that reflect recent developments in the EDI literature, we propose a two‐step framework for implementing the EDI agenda through GDM. We argue that to achieve inclusion, we first need to think differently about diversity and differences (i.e., view diversity in a positive light and recognise and appreciate differences as fluid), in order to act differently (i.e., promote reciprocal effort to leverage diversity). We illustrate our framework with the specific case of linguistic diversity, a diversity dimension that is particularly salient, but also often neglected in MNCs, and discuss the implications of the proposed framework for EDI theory as well as human resource management policies and practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While in theory frowned upon, comments on the (regional) provenance of scholars frequently found their way into the scholarly debates of the Republic of Letters. This article uses early responses to Galileo Galilei's Sidereus Nuncius as a case study to explore various broader assumptions and associations underlying the use of such comments on provenance. Presenting a typology of these arguments, the article contends that provenance was used as a rather flexible marker of credibility, which allowed seventeenth‐century scholars to employ it to either advocate for, or against credibility. Scholars made full use of the rhetorical possibilities that origin‐based associations offered, demonstrating their flexible – if not to say opportunistic – attitude towards scholarly credibility in the process. This article furthermore investigates the motives Galileo's contemporaries had for invoking surreptitious boasts or slurs about provenance. In doing so, it illuminates a crucial mechanism informing the selection of specific arguments: competition on a personal, regional and national level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While in theory frowned upon, comments on the (regional) provenance of scholars frequently found their way into the scholarly debates of the Republic of Letters. This article uses early responses to Galileo Galilei's Sidereus Nuncius as a case study to explore various broader assumptions and associations underlying the use of such comments on provenance. Presenting a typology of these arguments, the article contends that provenance was used as a rather flexible marker of credibility, which allowed seventeenth‐century scholars to employ it to either advocate for, or against credibility. Scholars made full use of the rhetorical possibilities that origin‐based associations offered, demonstrating their flexible – if not to say opportunistic – attitude towards scholarly credibility in the process. This article furthermore investigates the motives Galileo's contemporaries had for invoking surreptitious boasts or slurs about provenance. In doing so, it illuminates a crucial mechanism informing the selection of specific arguments: competition on a personal, regional and national level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Verbal derogation is not only a linguistic but also, and perhaps more importantly, a political phenomenon. In this paper, I argue that to do justice to the political relevance of derogatory terms, we must not neglect the social practices and structures in which the use of these terms is embedded. I aim to show that inferentialist semantics is especially helpful to account for this social embeddedness and, consequently, the political relevance of derogatory terms. I am concerned with specifying the linguistic and political aspects of terms that are at the core of derogatory language use. I explain them with the help of Brandomian inferentialism, which tends to be quickly dismissed or ignored in discussions about the meaning of derogatory terms. My inferentialist account is in line with Lynne Tirrell's broader inferentialist framework for understanding derogatory communicative practices. I provide the semantic details of her broader inferentialist view and thereby aim to show that inferentialist semantics is a promising theory which cannot be neglected in further discussion of meaning and politics in derogatory language use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Some philosophers believe that swearing is morally innocent insofar as it is non‐abusive and vulgarities are being used, such as when people exclaim "s**t!" or "f**k!" This article shows this view to be mistaken. I start by arguing that taking offense at non‐abusive vulgar swearing is not irrational, before arguing that, even if it were, such swearing would still not always be justified. The fact that many of us find it hard to overcome profanity‐induced offense, along with the fact that its existence is necessary for swearing to be possible, is sufficient to render even non‐abusive vulgar swearing sometimes wrong. I go on to assess the opposite view, according to which swearing, including non‐abusive vulgar swearing, is never justified, whereby two objections to this activity are addressed. According to the instrumentalization objection, the fact that swearing is possible only if at least some people are sometimes offended by the words that are used means that swearers treat those who are offended by their profanity as mere means. And according to the Ersatz objection, the fact that we can use inoffensive words to raise the emotional content of our speech renders swearing gratuitously offensive. Neither objection is found to be convincing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Slurring expressions display puzzling behaviour when embedded, such as under negation and in attitude and speech reports. They frequently appear to retain their characteristic qualities, like offensiveness and propensity to derogate. Yet it is sometimes possible to understand them as lacking these qualities. A theory of slurring expressions should explain this variability. We develop an explanation that deploys the linguistic notion of focus. Our proposal is that a speaker can conversationally implicate metalinguistic claims about the aptness of a focused slurring expression. This explanation of variability relies on independently motivated mechanisms and is compatible with any theory of slurring expressions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines the indifference to the language of scholarly or academic research journals amid the critiques from scholars such as Jonathan Rosa who have drawn attention to raciolinguistic and racist ideologies supporting accepted norms for published research prose. Topics include the author's brief account of her revision of the stylesheet for the journal "Monatshefte" after taking over as editor, her thoughts on the politics of citation and arguments on reproducing harmful language.

Geosciences remain one of the least diverse fields. Efforts to diversify the discipline need to address the role of hostile and exclusionary work and learning environments. A workplace climate survey distributed to five professional organizations illustrates varied experiences of earth and space scientists over a 12‐month period (pre‐COVID). A majority experienced positive interactions in the workplace. However, scientists of color, women and non‐binary individuals, scientists with disabilities, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, pansexual, and asexual (LGBQPA+) scientists more frequently experienced negative interactions, including interpersonal mistreatment, discriminatory language, and sexual harassment. Geoscientists of color were more likely to experience devaluation of their work than white scientists. More than half of women and non‐binary respondents, as well as those who identify as LGBQPA+ experienced identity‐based discriminatory remarks. Disabled geoscientists were more likely to hear negative identity‐based language than those who did not disclose a disability. Overall, 14% of all respondents experienced sexual harassment in the previous year. Rates were greatest for historically excluded groups: non‐binary (51%), LGBQPA+ (33%), disabled (26%), women (20%), and geoscientists of color (17%). A majority of geoscientists reported avoiding their colleagues and almost a third considered leaving their institution or a career change. Historically excluded groups were more likely to report opting out of professional activities with potential career consequences. To address continued exclusion and low retention in the earth and space sciences, recruitment is not enough. We need to create environments that ensure opportunities for all to thrive. Plain Language Summary: The earth and space sciences are among the least diverse fields. Efforts to diversify the geosciences often focus on recruitment. However, we have not created environments where all geoscientists can thrive. Data collected from a workplace climate survey distributed through five professional organizations illustrates the varied experiences of earth and space scientists over the previous year (pre‐COVID). A large majority experienced positive interactions in the workplace. However, scientists of color, women, scientists with disabilities, non‐binary and LGBQPA+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, pansexual, and asexual) scientists more frequently experienced negative interactions at work compared to their colleagues. Geoscientists of color were more likely to have their work devalued than white scientists. More than half of women and non‐binary respondents, as well as LGBQPA+ scientists experienced identity‐based discriminatory remarks. Disabled scientists were more likely to hear negative identity‐based language than those without a disability. Rates of sexual harassment were greatest among historically excluded groups. Historically excluded groups were more likely to report opt‐out activities that can have negative professional consequences. Key Points: Workplace experiences in the geosciences differ by gender, race and ethnicity, sexual orientation, ability status, and career stageHistorically excluded groups report more negative workplace environments and negative career outcomesDiversity, equity, and inclusion efforts need to address hostile behavior effects on careers and retention in the geosciences [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What counts as discrimination? Sometimes an event has to be a deliberate act of hate before it is described as discrimination. Sometimes "discrimination" can include much more subtle actions (e.g., microaggressions). There is good evidence that "what counts" as discrimination is mired in controversy, uncertainty, or ambivalence. We present a novel approach that bridges sociocultural and social cognitive accounts of "discrimination." Definitional boundaries of discrimination are the widely shared, common sense rules that people deploy when arguing whether an event constitutes discrimination or not (e.g., an emphasis on the personality of the alleged perpetrator; the importance of intention; and claims that the problem of discrimination is small and/or mostly limited to the past). These rules are culturally situated but also deployed by individuals in specific local contexts. We introduce a 15‐item measure of the extent to which participants are deploying broader or narrower definitional boundaries of discrimination (DBDs). We demonstrate that the measure has good convergent and discriminant validity (Study 1); that participants who are deploying narrow DBDs are less likely to make attributions to discrimination (Study 2); that participants' DBDs predict judgments for some intergroup contexts but not others (Study 3), and that participants who identify as racialized majorities have significantly narrower racism DBDs compared to participants who identify as racialized minorities (Study 4). We conclude with suggestions about how DBDs could be used in future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article offers a new perspective on the relationship between slurring terms and their neutral counterparts with an inferentialist view of slurs. I argue that slurs and their counterparts are coextensional with contrasting senses. Crucially, the proposed inferentialist view overcomes the combination of two challenges: Kaplanian inferences and the substitution argument. The previous views cannot account for both of them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Reclamation is usually taken to be the phenomenon wherein in‐groups employ a slur to express pride, foster camaraderie, or subvert discriminatory structures. We provide data showing that, under some special circumstances, out‐groups successfully reclaim slurs too. Thus, the mainstream restriction to in‐groups is merely an approximation of the correct extension of the phenomenon – of who does actually reclaim slurs. Removing any such stipulative restriction opens a path towards further theorizing into the nature of reclamation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Roberts' book demonstrates a qualitative, contextual linguistics that effectively brings to the surface problematic (though often well-intentioned) practices in the job interview, as well as the discourses that motivate them. In chapter 3, Roberts reviews studies of language and discrimination in job interviews and other work-related contexts. Although, as Roberts remarks, "you are what you talk in the interview" (p. 1), the roles of language and language-related ideologies in interview design and candidate evaluation remain largely invisible. [Extracted from the article]

Recent pragmatic accounts of slurs argue that the offensiveness of slurs is generated by a speaker's free choice to use a slur opposed to a more appropriate and semantically equivalent neutral counterpart. I argue that the theoretical role of neutral counterparts on such views is overstated. I consider two recent pragmatic analyses, Bolinger (Noûs, 51, 2017, 439) and Nunberg (New work on speech acts, Oxford University Press, 2018), which rely heavily upon the optionality of slurs, namely, that a speaker exercises a deliberate lexical choice to use a slur when they could have easily used a neutral counterpart instead. Against such views, I argue that across a range of different offensive uses of slurs, a speaker's choice to use a slur opposed to a neutral counterpart plays little to no role in accounting for why the slur generates offence. Such cases cast serious doubt upon the explanatory depth of these pragmatic analyses, and raise more general concerns for views which draw upon the relationship between a slur and its neutral counterpart. The main upshot is this: theorists should exercise caution in assuming that neutral counterparts play any fundamental or systemic role in explaining why slurs are offensive. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite evidence that acculturation hassles (such as discrimination and language hassles) relate to poorer adjustment for adolescents of immigrant descent, we know less about the psychological processes underlying these associations. In this study, we test whether reduced psychological needs satisfaction in terms of a lower sense of belonging, autonomy, and competence, mediates the associations of acculturation hassles with psychological distress and academic adjustment. Our sample included 439 seventh graders from 15 schools in Germany (51% female, Mage = 12.4 years, SD =.73). Results revealed that adolescents who experienced greater discrimination and language hassles showed a lower sense of belonging with classmates and subsequently, greater psychological distress. Those who experienced greater language hassles also exhibited a lower sense of perceived competence, and ultimately poorer academic adjustment. We conclude that self‐determination theory (SDT) provides an important framework to explain key processes underlying the links between acculturation hassles with psychological distress and academic (mal‐)adjustment. Strengthening belonging and competence among adolescents of immigrant descent may enhance their well‐being in the face of acculturation hassles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Tainted political symbols ought to be confronted, removed, or at least recontextualized. Despite the best efforts to achieve this, however, official actions on tainted symbols often fail to take place. In such cases, I argue that political vandalism—the unauthorized defacement, destruction, or removal of political symbols—may be morally permissible or even obligatory. This is when, and insofar as, political vandalism serves as fitting counter‐speech that undermines the authority of tainted symbols in ways that match their publicity, refuses to let them speak in our name, and challenges the derogatory messages expressed through a mechanism I call derogatory pedestalling: the glorification or honoring of certain individuals or ideologies that can only make sense when members of a targeted group are taken to be inferior. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Exposure to derogatory language about immigrants and minority groups leads to political radicalization and deteriorates intergroup relations. This article addresses the psychological processes responsible for these effects as well as those involved in hate‐speech proliferation in contemporary societies and discusses the factors that constrain its growth. We propose that frequent exposure to hate speech has severe effects on emotional, behavioral, and normative levels. Exposure to hate speech results in empathy being replaced by intergroup contempt as a dominant response to others—it is both a motivator and a consequence of derogatory language. The increased presence of hate speech in one's environment creates a sense of a descriptive norm that allows outgroup derogation. This leads to the erosion of existing antidiscriminatory norms. Finally, through a process of desensitization, hate speech reduces people's ability to recognize the offensive character of such language. Based on empirical evidence from the fields of social psychology and psychology of emotion and aggression, we propose a model that explains the described processes, and we trace the dynamics of this model using an agent‐based modeling approach. We show that the mechanisms potentially effective in constraining hate‐speech proliferation (empathy, norms) are eroded by hate speech itself. We argue that through basic psychological dynamics, societies become more accepting of derogatory language and less accepting of immigrants, as well as religious, ethnic, and sexual minorities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper is about group slurs, that is, expressions that are I prima facie i associated with the speaker's conveyance of contemptuous or derogatory feelings for the members of a certain group of people identified in terms of their ethnicity ("spic"), race ("nigger"), sexual orientation ("faggot"), religion ("kike"), political ideology ("fascist"), habits or ways of living ("whore"), etc.[1] SP , sp [2] Our purpose is twofold: (i) explaining their expressive meaning in terms of a version of stereotype semantics and (ii) grounding a distinction between predicative/argumental and epithetic occurrences of (some) slur words on the different syntactic configuration of the sentences containing them. Now, there are two main respects in which slurs can be thought to be different from natural kind terms in as far as their respective stereotypes are concerned: first, unlike natural kind stereotypes, slur stereotypes typically include I evaluative concepts i and encode a I negative global value; i second, unlike natural kind stereotypes, slur stereotypes constitute an I expressive meaning dimension. i These two aspects will be further developed in the next two subsections. The stereotype valence is not thus determined by (the valences of) its constitutive concepts but by the prejudicial belief that the target group must be subordinated, on grounds of the existence of well-entrenched discriminatory attitudes.[7] That is why each feature of the semantic stereotype, even the purely descriptive ones (such as, in our previous example, WITH A SPANISH ACCENT) turns out to be regarded as a trace or indicator of the subordinate status in question. [Extracted from the article]

The noun "tinker", like the term "Gypsy", is a pejorative for the Roma, yet the verb "to tinker" is not pejorative. But the main point is that although the verb "to tinker" is a denominalized form of "tinker", which is a pejorative, the verb is not itself pejorative. We speculate that the denominalization of a functional noun produces a verb that picks up the function but does not, or need not, retain the derogatory features of the noun, in cases in which the noun is a pejorative. For our purposes, however, the important point is that, even on Hom's view, I fully competent i speakers would know that a pejorative noun "N" has pejorative force for they would know that it means something like 'is contemptible for having such and such features due to being N*', where "N*" is a non-pejorative term referring to the identifiable group in question. [Extracted from the article]

Most theories of slurs fall into two families: Those which understand slurring terms to involve special descriptive/informational content (however conveyed), and those which understand them to encode special emotive/expressive content. Both offer essential insights, but part of what sets slurs apart is use‐theoretic content. Slurring words belong at the intersection of categories in a sociolinguistic register taxonomy, one that usually includes [+slang, +vulgar] and always includes [‐polite, +derogatory]. What distinguishes "Chinese" from "chink," for example, is neither a peculiar sort of descriptive nor emotional content, but the fact that "chink" is lexically marked as belonging to different registers. Moreover, such facts contribute to slurring being ethically unacceptable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study examines conflict talk and 'othering discourse' on Instagram involving the 2018 Winter Olympics hosted in Pyeongchang, South Korea. The disqualification of highly anticipated medalists in short track speed skating events elicited heated online arguments between Korean and Chinese sports fans. A content analysis of antagonistic texts featuring anti‐Korea and anti‐China posts reveals that 'othering' practices are predominantly performed by: (1) making reference to seemingly irrelevant details; (2) evoking stereotypical images of a race and/or a nation; and (3) utilizing overtly offensive language or transgressive language. Drawing upon linguistic strategies of encoding 'us' vs. 'them' dichotomies reported in earlier research, this study shows that explicit disparagement, disapproving representation of the other, stereotyping, and overgeneralization are readily utilized by both parties, who also occasionally engage in verbal reconciliation through lexical and syntactic mirroring. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The goal of this paper is to give an account of the pragmatic and social function of slurs, taken as speech acts. I develop a theory of the distinctive illocutionary force and pragmatic structure of slurs. I argue that slurs help to produce subjects who occupy social identities carved out by pernicious ideologies, and that they do this whether or not anyone involved intends for the slur to work that way or has any particular feelings or conscious thoughts associated with using or being targeted by the slur. I offer an Althusser‐inspired account of what an ideology is, as well as of the mechanisms by which slurs can serve to cue and strengthen ideologies. A slur, I argue, is a kind of interpellation, which reduces its target to a generic identity and derogates and subordinates its target. I explore how slurs and ideologies work in tandem to constitute and fortify one another. I end by applying my account to see how well it fits and helps illuminate three quite different, especially complex slurs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Racially coded language that appeals to racial bias without open bigotry has a long history in the politics of the United States. Politicians intentionally activate the latent racial biases of both racial conservatives and center‐left liberals without explicitly talking about race. Conservative positions on significant policy areas have shifted over time on the basis of coded racial appeals. Fundamental rights are coded as white rights. Government actions to aid the poor or reduce discrimination are coded as black threats. The racial dimension explains the changing positions of American conservatism on gun rights, crime and mass incarceration, immigration, the welfare state, federalism, and economic policy. White racial identity, mobilized by coded political talk, restrains the potential for cross‐racial coalitions and perpetuates the political repression of nonwhite Americans. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

I argue that the offense generation pattern of slurring terms parallels that of impoliteness behaviors, and is best explained by appeal to similar purely pragmatic mechanisms. In choosing to use a slurring term rather than its neutral counterpart, the speaker signals that she endorses the term (and its associations). Such an endorsement warrants offense, and consequently slurs generate offense whenever a speaker's use demonstrates a contrastive preference for the slurring term. Since this explanation comes at low theoretical cost and imposes few constraints on an account of the semantics of slurs, this suggests that we should not require semantic accounts to provide an independent explanation of the offense profile. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Linguistic and non-linguistic pattern learning have been studied separately, but we argue for a comparative approach. Analogous inductive problems arise in phonological and visual pattern learning. Evidence from three experiments shows that human learners can solve them in analogous ways, and that human performance in both cases can be captured by the same models. We test GMECCS (Gradual Maximum Entropy with a Conjunctive Constraint Schema), an implementation of the Configural Cue Model (Gluck & Bower, ) in a Maximum Entropy phonotactic-learning framework (Goldwater & Johnson, ; Hayes & Wilson, ) with a single free parameter, against the alternative hypothesis that learners seek featurally simple algebraic rules ('rule-seeking'). We study the full typology of patterns introduced by Shepard, Hovland, and Jenkins () ('SHJ'), instantiated as both phonotactic patterns and visual analogs, using unsupervised training. Unlike SHJ, Experiments 1 and 2 found that both phonotactic and visual patterns that depended on fewer features could be more difficult than those that depended on more features, as predicted by GMECCS but not by rule-seeking. GMECCS also correctly predicted performance differences between stimulus subclasses within each pattern. A third experiment tried supervised training (which can facilitate rule-seeking in visual learning) to elicit simple rule-seeking phonotactic learning, but cue-based behavior persisted. We conclude that similar cue-based cognitive processes are available for phonological and visual concept learning, and hence that studying either kind of learning can lead to significant insights about the other. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on nationalism and institutionalized sectarianism in Egypt. Topics discussed include social harmony and coexistence in Egypt, discriminatory practices in Egypt, Security management of relations, including police responses to violence and reconciliation processes are particularly controversial in the context of sectarian relations and communities through inaccuracies in reports and controversial language.