• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

BAD WORDS GONE GOOD: SEMANTIC REANALYSIS IN AFRICAN AMERICAN ENGLISH by Adrienne Washington B.A., Hampton University, 2007 Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Linguistics in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts University of Pittsburgh 2010 ri UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH FACULTY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES This thesis was presented by Adrienne Washington It was defended on Friday, April 9, 2010 and approved by Shelome A. Gooden, Ph.D, Associate Professor of Linguistics Emily McEwan-Fujita, Ph.D, Assistant Professor of Anthropology Scott F. Kiesling, Ph.D, Associate Professor of Linguistics Thesis Advisor: Shelome A. Gooden, Ph.D, Associate Professor of Linguistics ii Copyright © by Adrienne Washington 2010 iii BAD WORDS GONE GOOD: SEMANTIC REANALYSIS IN AFRICAN AMERICAN ENGLISH Adrienne Washington, MA University of Pittsburgh, 2010 Semantic reanalysis produces lexemes that bear positive connotations in AAE in contrast with their ―Mainstream‖ American English (MAE) (Lippi-Green, 1997) homonyms. For example, badAAE, awesome, versus badMAE, characterized by negative qualities. This present survey of semantic reanalysis in AAE shows that lexical meaning is subject to analogous types of linguistic variation commonly discussed in variationist studies. It helps lay the foundation for a quantitative study of African American English (AAE) lexemes and semantic change through an exploration of semantic reanalysis. Previous investigations of semantic reanalysis (e.g. Smitherman, 1977) claim that using defamatory words, like bad, in positive ways derives from an African tradition, i.e. hypothesizing that these are semantic calquings from Niger-Congo languages. Although semantic reanalysis appears in West African languages, it is also used by minority groups with no West African connection. Additionally, although the sociohistorical evidence suggests that AAE is a restructured English variety, semantic reanalysis is not a necessary strategy for restructured Englishes. The inadequacy of Afro-genetic accounts, together with the fact that the linguistics literature lacks a cohesive discussion of AAE semantic reanalysis, has motivated the present study. It offers more accessible, verifiable and generalizable explanations for AAE semantics. This study reveals that AAE‘s distinct semantics cannot be attributed to Niger-Congo iv retention but rather to the ecology around which AAE emerged. I propose that AAE semantics derive from sociohistorical factors that have shaped the variety. I also suggest that semantic reanalysis is a pervasive, community-wide phenomenon that a number of AAE speakers employ as a form of responsive discourse, i.e. to differentiate themselves from non-community members. These results are based on quantitative and supplementary qualitative analyses of data from 53 AAE-speaking adults from the Rankin community in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Participants provided definitions and positive/negative evaluations of a variety of lexemes, including semantically reanalyzed words. Responses were coded using AAE and MAE dictionaries alongside my own native-speaker intuitions. Frequency analyses helped assess the pervasiveness of semantic reanalysis in the AAE community. Mixed-effects regression tests identified a generation-stratified pattern of variation wherein participants born after 1959—i.e. post-de jure segregation—were more familiar with reanalyzed words. v TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE .................................................................................................................................... XI 1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................ 1 2.0 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ON SEMANTIC REANALYSIS ........................... 6 2.1 BORROWING AS AN IMPETUS FOR SEMANTIC REANALYSIS .................. 7 2.2 TRANSFER AND RELEXIFICATION AS IMPETUSES FOR SEMANTIC REANALYSIS ...................................................................................................................... 9 2.3 LANGUAGE-INTERNAL IMPETUSES FOR SEMANTIC REANALYSIS ..... 13 2.4 SEMANTIC CHANGES: QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE .................. 15 2.4.1 Quantitative Semantic Changes: Broadening and Restriction ............... 15 2.4.2 Qualitative Semantic Changes : Pejoration and Amelioration............... 18 2.5 TRENDS OF CHANGE ............................................................................................ 24 2.5.1 Pejoration..................................................................................................... 24 2.5.1.1 Pejoration of Black-related language................................................ 27 2.5.2 Amelioration ................................................................................................ 31 2.5.2.1 Amelioration of sexist, homophobic, and racist epithets ................. 31 2.5.2.2 Amelioration of non-epithets ............................................................. 32 3.0 SOCIOHISTORICAL CONTEXT .................................................................................. 34 3.1 AFRICAN AMERICAN ENGLISH: LINGUISTIC BACKGROUND ............... 34 3.2 THE BLACK PRESENCE IN EARLY PITTSBURGH ....................................... 41 3.2.1 Pittsburgh from the Homestead Phase to the mid-19th century ............... 42 3.2.2 Pittsburgh from the late-19th century onward ........................................... 45 3.2.3 “Steadfast and Unmovable”: African American Culture and the Black Church ....................................................................................................................... 48 vi 3.3 THE ORIGIN OF AFRICAN AMERICAN ENGLISH – A RECAP .................. 50 3.3.1 Afrogenesis: Semantic Reanalysis as an African Retention, Borrowing or Calque ....................................................................................................................... 54 3.4 Ecological, Generalizable Accounts ......................................................................... 57 4.0 METHODS AND PROCEDURE ..................................................................................... 61 4.1 DATA COLLECTION .............................................................................................. 61 4.1.1 Participant Selection and Recruitment ........................................................ 62 4.1.2 Measures and Scoring .................................................................................... 64 4.1.3 Social Factors .................................................................................................. 67 4.2 RESEARCH HYPOTHESES AND STATISTICAL TESTS ................................ 70 4.2.1 Hypotheses ...................................................................................................... 70 4.2.2 Statistical Methods ......................................................................................... 73 5.0 RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION ............................................................................ 75 5.1 HYPOTHESIS & RESEARCH CLAIMS ............................................................... 76 5.2 GENERATION-STRATIFIED PATTERNS OF LANGUAGE ........................... 81 5.2.1 Determining the random variables ............................................................... 81 5.2.2 Arranging Social Class .................................................................................. 82 5.2.3 Mixed-effects Model Results ......................................................................... 83 5.3 IS SEMANTIC REANALYSIS A PERVASIVE PHENOMENON ACROSS THE AFRICAN AMERICAN ENGLISH COMMUNITY? .................................................... 86 5.3.1 Multiple populations in the sample .............................................................. 87 5.3.2 Pervasiveness of Semantic Reanalysis in the sample .................................. 90 5.4 CONCEPTIONS OF RACIAL EPITHETS ACROSS GENERATIONS ............ 91 5.4.1 Chi-square tests of independence: are there generational differences in how the “N-word” is perceived? ............................................................................... 97 5.5 EMIC VERSUS STANDARD NORMS AND CONVENTIONS .......................... 99 5.5.1 Contrastive Spelling?: Are <fat> and <nigger> identical to <phat> and <nigga>? .................................................................................................................... 101 5.5.1.1 <fat> versus <phat>: Depends on how you spell it ....................... 101 vii 5.5.1.2 <nigger> versus <nigga> and other semantically reanalyzed epithets ............................................................................................................ 105 6.0 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................... 111 6.1 IS SEMANTIC REANALYSIS EMPLOYED AS A MEANS OF DIFFERENTIATION AND DISTINCTION? ............................................................... 113 6.1.1 Reevaluating Norms and the Advent of Local Prestiges .......................... 114 6.1.2 Is it an African (American) thing?: Local perspectives on the origins and purposes of semantic reanalysis .............................................................................. 118 6.1.3 Creativity and Crossovers ........................................................................... 122 6.2 FINAL REMARKS ................................................................................................. 123 APPENDIX A ...........................................................................................................................

Load more

  161

Copy Link