Chapter 1 Introduction
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Chapter 1 Semanticists should direct their theoretical pursuits to the linguistic needs and concerns of speakers. (Wierzbicka 1987: 2) 1.1 Introduction 'Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me' asserts the folkloric adage. In contrast, speakers often equate emotive thinking with sensation. When someone is insulted he or she can say I feel hurt. When someone is offended he or she can say I feel wounded. When someone feels humiliated he or she can say my ego is bruised. Speakers can say that prejudice is an illness while racism is often talked about as a disease that can be contagious or cured. Speakers can perform hatred with speech and words can constitute an immediate breach of the peace. How do speakers talk about, think about and act out abuse, hatred and discrimination? This thesis aims to contribute to the existing body of knowledge in this practical area, ultimately in pursuit of "the linguistic needs and concerns of speakers". The way we talk about discrimination is a critical topic. Van Dijk's (1987, 1988, 1991, 1992, 1993) extensive research into discourse and discrimination identifies the social and ideological dimensions of inter-group conflict. From a semantic viewpoint, this research expands on this idea. This thesis takes a comprehensive analytical approach, considering three main elements of discrimination, namely the rhetorical, social and cognitive dimensions. The rhetorical dimension consists of divisive speech acts, to insult, to abuse, to offend, to vilify and to denigrate. The social dimension consists of the everyday, social practices of discrimination against individuals or different groups, to discriminate against, to demonise, to dehumanise, to stigmatise, and to marginalise. The cognitive dimension consists of the beliefs and attitudes, intolerance, xenophobia, stereotypes, sexism, racism and prejudices that function as the motivation and legitimatisation of discriminatory practices. The selected concepts are all pivotal, salient terms in the lexicon of discrimination, forming a semantic set. 10 Language is an intrinsic tool in acts of abuse, hatred and discrimination. It acts as a precursor to and instigator of forms of conflict, and typically accompanies acts of violence, in all of its forms. We closely associate the language of discrimination with these themes, for example, the fighting words that incite a race riot, the derogatory abuse in a situation of domestic violence, a national insult, graffiti that vilifies, the seditious hate speech of the supremacist movements, and the verbal dehumanisation of wartime propaganda. Language is an inseparable component of discord. As a primary tool in socialisation and an indicator of relations, language shapes our perceptions (Whorf 1956; Wierzbicka 1999). The language we hear, learn and use influences our attitudes and behaviour, meanwhile encoding socio-cultural attitudes. Language reflects contemporary discrimination, revealing any prejudice of its day. It is a synchronic 'snap shot' of how we think about different kinds of people. Analysing linguistic areas such as key terms, derogatory language, speech acts, metaphor and euphemism will assist us in an investigation of discrimination. Bolinger (1980) asserts that language is not a neutral instrument, it is biased. This view is supported by Fairclough (1992: 7) who observes that "language conventions and language practices are invested with power relations and ideological processes which people are often unaware of'. The language we use is influenced by our own perceptions and prejudices. Words can attempt to create peace, solidarity and understanding, such as Martin Luther King Junior's "I Have a Dream" speech. Alternatively, words can vilify, provoking hatred and hostility, such as the vitriolic rhetoric of the Nuremberg Rallies. Historical and contemporary incidences of inter-group conflict reveal the power of language, to influence, manipulate and harm. Language creates the conditions by which a phenomenon comes to be recognised as such, and thus the potential for its use in discrimination, e.g., when refugees become queue-jumpers. Language that is psychologically abusive, discriminatory and incites hatred is the verbal manifestation of violence, language employed as a weapon. Discrimination, in all of its potential forms, is widespread, affecting all sections of our communities (Feagin 1991; Zajicek 2002). Van Dijk (1996) asserts that the processes of discrimination are visible in all major social domains, including areas of immigration, integration, employment, education, housing and health, media, welfare and social security, politics and law and order. These forms may be covert or overt, all resulting in social inequality with the potential for other forms of conflict. 11 But what is discrimination? Although this question will be treated throughout this thesis, a brief discussion is needed here. On a salient, prominent level, discrimination is perceived as social prejudices, especially racism, sexism, ageism, sexual orientation-based or disability-based prejudice. On an embedded level, discrimination is perceived as Human Resources/Equal Opportunity issues of inequitable practices, suggesting favouritism, disadvantage and unfairness. It could be argued that these are the effects resultant of discrimination, or they serve as adjectives to describe the way we perceive acts of discrimination. For example, this can be illustrated pragmatically, when someone discriminates against someone it is unfair, it shows favouritism, it disadvantages people. Discrimination is polysemous, with a secondary sense that has positive connotations of an ability to 'value quality' or be 'attuned to subtle differences', showing discernment, distinction and good taste, e.g. He shows discrimination in his taste in wine. However, there appears to be a semantic change taking place, with the 'negative' sense supplanting the 'positive' sense. It is a common phenomenon in polysemy (meaning variants of the same form) for a dysphemistic sense to become more prominent than a neutral, innocuous sense, or to even displace it. Allan and Burridge (1991) note that this process often occurs with homonymous forms and words bearing a phonological similarity to a taboo word. The scope of discrimination is more extensive than concepts of prejudice, and the effects go well beyond inequity alone. Discrimination can be perceived as a superordinate 'umbrella' term. This is a broad label that covers a wide range of specific attitudinal and behavioural labels (i.e., hyponyms) that can be considered as the processes or forms of discrimination. Therefore, discrimination-related words will be presented as a semantic set. What is the ideological basis of discrimination? A key to understanding this lies with pragmatics, we discriminate against other people (i.e., different kinds of people). As observed by Morris (1969), it is a human practice, to identify differences between people. We categorise ourselves into different kinds and types. We 'sort' ourselves into categories. It is a cultural impulse for us to do this, and we differentiate between ourselves and other people based on factors such as ethnicity, physical appearance, accent, age and gender. Andersson and Trudgill (1990: 4) assert, "Where there is variation, there is evaluation". Seemingly, it is natural for us to do this, and classification is important to meaning. However, discriminatory thinking, or profiling, 12 especially on a collective scale, can progress to a negative us and them attitude, a process also known as othering. Lenman (2003) notes that othering has become a pejorative verb in English, involving the cultural, social or racial categorisation, differentiation and negativisation of others (i.e., other kinds of people). Othering is a way of thinking that is expressed, displayed or communicated to other in-group members, then enacted against out groups members. Scholars Edward Said (1979) and Jacques Derrida (1984) have given prominence to the role of othering and exclusion in thought, with Derrida (1984: 116) remarking that, "Every culture is haunted by its other". Othering is not solely an issue of ethnicity and division. Beauvoir's (1949: 11) seminal feminist text, The Second Sex, claims that historically, women have been defined as the 'other' sex, and perceived as an aberration from the 'normal' male sex. Lenman (2003) further defines othering as a process by which individuals or social groups define who they are by discrediting or demeaning other individuals or groups, and denying common ground. For example, when countries colonize other countries, perceiving themselves as advanced and civilized, while seeing the country they have colonised and the people as being primitive and backward and therefore less important. Othering includes an 'us and them' mentality. Van Dijk (1996: 17-19) constructed an ideological structure to explain the us and them dichotomy: THEY are different from US THEY look different THEY have a different culture THEY do not (want to) integrate THEY do not speak OUR language THEY have different customs THEY have different norms and values THEY have a different mentality THEY do not work hard enough THEY cannot be trusted THEY are deviant THEIR culture is intolerant THEY are fundamentalists 13 THEY are violent and criminal THEY engage in riots THEY are terrorists THEY are drug addicts THEY are a threat to us THEY threaten OUR culture, country, city, neighbourhood THEY make us feel unsafe THEY take away OUR jobs THEY take