DOCSLIB.ORG

Language Change: Identity Management and the Boundaries of Acceptable Verbal Conduct in School Settings

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Language Change: Identity Management and the Boundaries of Acceptable Verbal Conduct in School Settings LANGUAGE CHANGE: IDENTITY MANAGEMENT AND THE BOUNDARIES OF ACCEPTABLE VERBAL CONDUCT IN SCHOOL SETTINGS Lynn Downes BA primAry educAtion, BA pre-primary education, BTTC, Master of EducAtion, Inclusive EducAtion, QUT, Master of EducAtion, TESOL, QUT. CELTA, UQ Principal Supervisor: Associate Professor Margaret Kettle Associate Supervisor: Professor Gordon Tait Associate Supervisor: Dr Peter O’Brien Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Office of Education Research Faculty of Education Queensland University of Technology May 2019. This page has been intentionally left blank “Fuck is a sacred word?” you ask. Fucking A right it is. It is a word that one should not utter because it is such a terrible word of epic proportions, a word whose mere utterance is a sin. A fucking sin, can you imagine? That’s how fucking important fuck is. And because it’s a sin, using it is so enticing to the young that when they hear it for the first time they are spellbound. And when they use it for the first time, that F and the U bang so deliciously against the hard K, ripping through the lips, it’s as if a caged animal has been unleashed. They feel that they have taken that first mighty step toward adulthood. Some of them may even repeat it over and over, testing to see if God will strike them down for saying it. It’s a word you don’t use in polite conversation or in front of your parents, which makes it even more glorious when chewed up and spit out in the schoolyard or in the bowels of the basement. (Black, 2009, p. vii) Language change: Identity management and the boundaries of acceptable verbal conduct in school settings i Keywords Behavioural school policy, boundaried language, Critical Discourse Analysis, De Saussure, discourse, dysphemism, euphemism, exclusion, Fairclough, Foucault, -IST language, language change, suspensions, swearing, taboo, taboo language, taboo words, verbal conduct, verbal misconduct. ii Language change: Identity management and the boundaries of acceptable verbal conduct in school settings AbstrAct Change in the prevalence and acceptability of swearing and taboo language relates to language change but is also relevant to schools and their practices of student suspension on the grounds of verbal misconduct. Queensland Department of Education data show that verbal and non-verbal misconduct was the second highest reason for suspensions and exclusions in Queensland government schools from 2008 to 2017. Limited data is available for similar incidents of verbal misconduct in non-government schools, however, social referencing of these linguistic practices suggest verbal misconduct is prevalent in these contexts. This study was interested in changing language use and norms in society, especially around taboo language and swearing in secondary school settings. Given the high prevalence of suspensions and exclusions based on verbal misconduct, the study aimed to investigate how key institutional stakeholders, particularly teachers and school leaders, define language transgressions and engage with the policies around these issues. This Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) used snowball sampling to garner accounts of 19 teachers and school leaders from 14 secondary schools in south east Queensland. Individual interviews generated data which were analysed through a Foucaultian lens of power and governmentality, employing Fairclough’s approach to CDA. The key findings of the study indicate that policy surrounding language infringement is ambiguous; teachers and school leaders use personal parameters in defining acceptability standards and responses to taboo language and swearing, however, they are facilitating the change in swearing and taboo language by disciplining language of difference, such as racist, sexist, ableist or -IST language more. In addition, the study evidences change in use of certain words by students. This corresponds with the literature on swearing and taboo language change. Findings also reveal that participants are finding that taboo language and swearing use has increased over time, being more frequently used with less effective consequences. Findings also suggest that consistency is lacking with references made to variance and difference amongst specific teacher subjectivities. Difference and division are also apparent in gendered experiences and expectations of participants. Language change: Identity management and the boundaries of acceptable verbal conduct in school settings iii These findings reveal that if verbal misconduct continues to be a punishable behaviour then policy around language transgressions need to be more explicit with more dialogue required between teachers, students, and school leaders about language, its changes, and social power. iv Language change: Identity management and the boundaries of acceptable verbal conduct in school settings Table of Contents Keywords .................................................................................................................................. ii Abstract .................................................................................................................................... iii Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................... v List of Figures ........................................................................................................................ viii List of Tables ........................................................................................................................... ix List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................................ X Statement of Original Authorship ............................................................................................ xi Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................. xii Chapter 1: Society, Schools, and Language ....................................................... 1 1.1 Preface ............................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Language and the School Environment .......................................................................... 6 1.3 The Broader Language Environment .............................................................................. 9 1.3.1 A General Acceptance .......................................................................................... 9 1.3.2 A Certain Divide ................................................................................................ 11 1.4 Aims, Objectives, and Research Questions .................................................................. 12 1.5 Significance and Scope ................................................................................................. 13 1.6 Thesis Outline ............................................................................................................... 14 Chapter 2: Literature in the Field .................................................................... 17 2.1 The Language ............................................................................................................... 18 2.1.1 Taboo and the Connection with Language ......................................................... 18 2.1.2 Swearing and Taboo Language Change through the Ages ................................ 22 2.1.3 Euphemism, Dysphemism, and Orthophemism ................................................. 29 2.1.4 Why People Swear? The Pragmatics of Swearing ............................................. 31 2.1.5 Swearing Now and the Future: Changing Taboos and Changing Words ........... 36 2.2 Schools and Swearing Policies ..................................................................................... 40 2.2.1 Behaviour Policy in Australia and Queensland – A Short History .................... 42 2.2.2 Behaviour Policies in Schools ............................................................................ 43 2.3 Teacher Response ......................................................................................................... 45 2.4 Summary ....................................................................................................................... 46 Chapter 3: Theoretical Perspective .................................................................. 49 3.1 The ToolboX .................................................................................................................. 49 3.2 The Order of Discourse, Discursive Formations, and the Institution ........................... 52 3.2.1 Discursive Formations ........................................................................................ 57 3.3 De Saussure and the Sign ............................................................................................. 58 3.4 Pragmatics – ConteXt and Meaning: Aligning Foucault and De Saussure ................... 62 3.5 Truth and Power ........................................................................................................... 64 3.6 Ethics, Morality, and the Self ....................................................................................... 68 3.6.1 The Subject ......................................................................................................... 68 Language change: Identity management and the boundaries of acceptable verbal conduct
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Full Article
    467 O'NEIL 2/28/2013 3:54 PM HATE SPEECH, FIGHTING WORDS, AND BEYOND—WHY AMERICAN LAW IS UNIQUE Robert M. O‘Neil* During the waning days of the turbulent presidential campaign of 2012, the issue of free speech was bound to emerge. President Barack Obama chose this moment to declare to the United Nations General Assembly his abiding commitment to the uniquely American value of unfettered expression.1 In a diverse society, he reaffirmed, ―efforts to restrict speech can become a tool to silence critics, or oppress minorities.‖2 The catalyst for this declaration was the appearance of ―a crude and disgusting video‖3 caricaturing the Prophet Muhammad which had triggered violent protests in more than twenty nations, mainly in the Middle East.4 President Obama made clear both his disdain for the video and his unswerving faith in the singularly American insistence on free expression.5 Curiously (or some would say paradoxically) the Obama Administration only weeks earlier had actively supported passage of a resolution in the United Nations Human Rights Council to create an international standard restricting some anti-religious speech; the Egyptian ambassador to the United Nations had lauded this measure by recognizing that ―‗freedom of expression has been sometimes misused‘ to insult religion.‖6 Secretary of State Hilary Clinton had added her view that speech or protest resulting in the destruction of religious sites was not, she noted, ―fair game.‖7 In a recent and expansive analysis of these contrasting events, * University of Virginia and Association of Governing Boards, Albany Law Review Symposium, September, 2012.
    [Show full text]
  • See What's on ¶O – Lelo This Week, This Hour, This Second
    FOR THE WEEK OF MAY 28 - JUNE 3, 2017 THE GREAT INDEX TO FUN DINING • ARTS • MUSIC • NIGHTLIFE Look for it every Friday in the HIGHLIGHTS THIS WEEK on Fox. Jamie Foxx hosts this new game show, which TODAY TUESDAY features Shazam, the world’s most popular song identi- The Leftovers World of Dance fication app. HBO 6:00 p.m. KHNL 9:00 p.m. FRIDAY Kevin (Justin Theroux) assumes an alternate identity Extraordinary dancers from all ages and walks of life Shark Tank when he embarks on a mission of mercy in a new epi- kick off the qualifier round for the chance to win a life- sode of “The Leftovers,” airing today on HBO. altering $1-million prize in the premiere of “World of KITV 7:00 p.m. The post-apocalyptic drama follows a family of survi- Dance,” airing Tuesday on NBC. Jenna Dewan Tatum vors a few years after the mysterious simultaneous dis- serves as mentor and host, while Jennifer Lopez, Business moguls decide whether or not to invest appearance of 140 million people. Derek Hough and Ne-Yo serve as judges. their own money in new products and companies in back-to-back episodes of the critically acclaimed reali- ty TV series “Shark Tank,” airing Friday on ABC. MONDAY WEDNESDAY Hopeful entrepreneurs pitch their ideas in the hopes of Lucifer The F Word snagging a deal with a Shark. KHON 8:00 p.m. KHON 8:00 p.m. SATURDAY Charlotte (Tricia Helfer) acciden- Celebrity chef and TV personality Gordon Ram- To Tell the Truth tally charbroils a man to death say hosts as foodie families and friends compete in self-defence, and Lucifer in high-stakes cook-offs in “The F Word,” pre- KITV 7:00 p.m.
    [Show full text]
  • Free Speech Or Hate Speech? a Conversation Regarding State V
    Free Speech or Hate Speech? A Conversation Regarding State v. Liebenguth November 16, 2020 4:00 p.m. – 6:00 p.m. CT Bar Association Webinar CT Bar Institute, Inc. CT: 2.0 CLE Credits (1.0 General / 1.0 Ethics) NY:2.0 CLE Credits (1.0 AOP / 1.0 Ethics) No representation or warranty is made as to the accuracy of these materials. Readers should check primary sources where appropriate and use the traditional legal research techniques to make sure that the information has not been affected or changed by recent developments. Page 1 of 163 Table of Contents Lawyers’ Principles of Professionalism...................................................................................................................3 Agenda ....................................................................................................................................................................6 Faculty Biographies ................................................................................................................................................7 Hate Crime Laws ..................................................................................................................................................10 State v. Liebenguth ................................................................................................................................................26 State v. Liebenguth 181 Conn.App. 37 ..................................................................................................................49 State v. Baccala .....................................................................................................................................................67
    [Show full text]
  • Fighting Words in the Era of Texts, Ims and E-Mails: Can a Disparaged Doctrine Be Resuscitated to Punish Cyber-Bullies?
    DePaul Journal of Art, Technology & Intellectual Property Law Volume 21 Issue 1 Fall 2010 Article 2 Fighting Words in the Era of Texts, IMs and E-Mails: Can a Disparaged Doctrine Be Resuscitated to Punish Cyber-Bullies? Clay Calvert Follow this and additional works at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/jatip Recommended Citation Clay Calvert, Fighting Words in the Era of Texts, IMs and E-Mails: Can a Disparaged Doctrine Be Resuscitated to Punish Cyber-Bullies?, 21 DePaul J. Art, Tech. & Intell. Prop. L. 1 (2010) Available at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/jatip/vol21/iss1/2 This Lead Article is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Law at Via Sapientiae. It has been accepted for inclusion in DePaul Journal of Art, Technology & Intellectual Property Law by an authorized editor of Via Sapientiae. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Calvert: Fighting Words in the Era of Texts, IMs and E-Mails: Can a Dispar FIGHTING WORDS IN THE ERA OF TEXTS, IMS AND E-MAILS: CAN A DISPARAGED DOCTRINE BE RESUSCITATED TO PUNISH CYBER-BULLIES? Clay Calvert' One of the few traditional categories of expression falling outside the ambit of First Amendment2 protection - one of the so- called "categorical carve-outs"' - is the much-maligned 4 class of 1. Professor & Brechner Eminent Scholar in Mass Communication and Director of the Marion B. Brechner First Amendment Project at the University of Florida, Gainesville, Fla. B.A., 1987, Communication, Stanford University; J.D. (Order of the Coif), 1991, McGeorge School of Law, University of the Pacific; Ph.D., 1996, Communication, Stanford University.
    [Show full text]
  • MORSE V. FREDERICK
    (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2006 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus MORSE ET AL. v. FREDERICK CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 06–278. Argued March 19, 2007—Decided June 25, 2007 At a school-sanctioned and school-supervised event, petitioner Morse, the high school principal, saw students unfurl a banner stating “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS,” which she regarded as promoting illegal drug use. Consistent with established school policy prohibiting such messages at school events, Morse directed the students to take down the banner. When one of the students who had brought the banner to the event—respondent Frederick—refused, Morse confiscated the banner and later suspended him. The school superintendent upheld the suspension, explaining, inter alia, that Frederick was disciplined because his banner appeared to advocate illegal drug use in violation of school policy. Petitioner school board also upheld the suspension. Frederick filed suit under 42 U. S. C. §1983, alleging that the school board and Morse had violated his First Amendment rights. The Dis- trict Court granted petitioners summary judgment, ruling that they were entitled to qualified immunity and that they had not infringed Frederick’s speech rights.
    [Show full text]
  • The New Profanity Steven R
    ® THE LANGUAGE QUARTERLY Vol. XXV, No. 4 Autumn 2000 VERBATIM Editor: Erin McKean Founding Editor: Laurence Urdang The New Profanity Steven R. Finz The Sea Ranch, California nly a few decades ago, no person of culture battle began in the corridors of a California Owould use the f-word in polite company. municipal court, although it was inspired by a dif- Now, although even our courts have stopped ferent kind of battle that was taking place in Viet shrinking from public pronunciation of the word Nam. On April 26, 1968, Paul Robert Cohen fuck, all America heard O. J. Simpson’s defense walked through a Los Angeles County court- lawyer ask witness Mark Fuhrman if he had used house, in the presence of women and children, “the n-word” any time in the past ten years. wearing a jacket bearing the words “Fuck the Ironically, Fuhrman’s answer was “No. Never.” Draft” plainly emblazoned on its back. When Have ethnically offensive terms become the only Cohen entered a courtroom, he removed the dirty words left to our society? jacket and draped it over his arm. A court officer America holds a traditional belief in the ben- asked the judge to hold Cohen in contempt, but efits of free expression. United States Supreme the judge refused, since no offense had been Court Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote that one of committed in his presence. So the police were the prerogatives of American citizenship is the called. Cohen was arrested and convicted of vio- freedom to speak “foolishly and without modera- lating a California law that prohibited disturbing tion.”1 Our courts have a long history of protect- the peace.
    [Show full text]
  • Fighting Words and the First Amendment Thomas F
    Kentucky Law Journal Volume 63 | Issue 1 Article 2 1974 "Don't Bother to Smile When You Call Me That"-- Fighting Words and the First Amendment Thomas F. Shea St. John's University Follow this and additional works at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/klj Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the First Amendment Commons Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits you. Recommended Citation Shea, Thomas F. (1974) ""Don't Bother to Smile When You Call Me That"--Fighting Words and the First Amendment," Kentucky Law Journal: Vol. 63 : Iss. 1 , Article 2. Available at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/klj/vol63/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in Kentucky Law Journal by an authorized editor of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. "Don't Bother to Smile When You Call Me That" -Fighting Words and the First Amendment By THOMAS F. SHEA* According to Owen Wister, certain words, at least when spoken without a disarming smile, are likely to provoke swift physical retaliation.' Kipling put it with characteristic clarity: "[Y]ou must not call a man a bastard unless you are prepared '2 to prove it on his front teeth." In order to forestall such violence-prone confrontations, it would seem desirable for society to prevent the insulting utter- ances which precipitate them in the first instance. Presumably laws effecting that result would advance society's undeniable interest in preserving the peace in two ways: by initially deter- ring the employment of abusive language and, where the speaker has not been deterred, by encouraging the recipient to seek redress through the judicial process rather than to rely on more immediate and more primitive means of obtaining satis- faction.
    [Show full text]
  • First Amendment in a Hostile Environment: a Primer on Free Speech and Sexual Harassment Jules B
    Notre Dame Law Review Volume 68 Issue 5 The Civil Rights Act of 1991: Theory and Article 4 Practice 6-1-1999 First Amendment in a Hostile Environment: A Primer on Free Speech and Sexual Harassment Jules B. Gerard Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Jules B. Gerard, First Amendment in a Hostile Environment: A Primer on Free Speech and Sexual Harassment, 68 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1003 (1993). Available at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr/vol68/iss5/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Notre Dame Law Review by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The First Amendment in a Hostile Environment: A Primer on Free Speech and Sexual Harassment Jules B. Gerard' Civil suits by women charging that sexual harassment in the workplace created such intolerably hostile environments that they were unable to perform effectively have multiplied in the past decade. In every case, incidents involving speech were alleged or found to have contributed to the hostile environment. Re- markably, however, defendants almost never claimed that the sin-' gled out speech was constitutionally protected. On those few occa- sions when they did raise that issue, their claims were rejected virtually out of hand.1 The United States Supreme Court might be partly to blame for this casual disregard of free speech interests. When the Court first interpreted and upheld the federal law that bans sexual dis- crimination in employment practices, it made no point of the fact that the law plainly implicates First Amendment values.
    [Show full text]
  • Looking Back at Cohen V. California: a 40 Year Retrospective from Inside the Court
    William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal Volume 20 (2011-2012) Issue 3 Article 2 March 2012 Looking Back at Cohen v. California: A 40 Year Retrospective from Inside the Court Thomas G. Krattenmaker Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the First Amendment Commons Repository Citation Thomas G. Krattenmaker, Looking Back at Cohen v. California: A 40 Year Retrospective from Inside the Court, 20 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 651 (2012), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj/ vol20/iss3/2 Copyright c 2012 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj LOOKING BACK AT COHEN V. CALIFORNIA: A 40-YEAR RETROSPECTIVE FROM INSIDE THE COURT Thomas G. Krattenmaker* This case may seem at first blush too inconsequential to find its way into our books, but the issue it presents is of no small constitu- tional significance.1 In April 1968, at the height of the Vietnam War, when campuses from Columbia to Berkeley were in upheaval and many cities in America were on fire due to racial discord as well as antiwar sentiment, a young man named Paul Robert Cohen en- gaged in a comparatively quiet act of protest. Summoned to appear as a witness, Cohen walked through a corridor of the Los Angeles County Courthouse wearing a jacket on which “Fuck the Draft” was written.2 For that act, Cohen was convicted of “maliciously and willfully disturb[ing] the peace or quiet .
    [Show full text]
  • Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C
    Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Remand of Section III.B of the Commission’s ) DA 06-1739 March 15, 2006 Omnibus Order Resolving ) Numerous Broadcast Television Indecency ) Complaints ) JOINT COMMENTS OF FOX TELEVISION STATIONS, INC., CBS BROADCASTING INC., NBC UNIVERSAL, INC. AND NBC TELEMUNDO LICENSE CO. Ellen S. Agress Carter G. Phillips Maureen O’Connell R. Clark Wadlow FOX TELEVISION STATIONS, INC. James P. Young 1211 Avenue of the Americas Jennifer Tatel New York, NY 10036 David S. Petron (212) 252-7204 SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 1501 K St., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 736-8000 Counsel for Fox Television Stations, Inc. Susanna Lowy Robert Corn-Revere Anne Lucey Ronald G. London CBS BROADCASTING, INC. Amber L. Husbands 51 West 52nd Street DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP New York, NY 10019 1500 K Street, N.W., Suite 450 (212) 975-3406 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 508-6600 Counsel for CBS Broadcasting Inc. Susan Weiner Miguel A. Estrada F. William LeBeau Andrew S. Tulumello NBC UNIVERSAL, INC. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 30 Rockefeller Plaza 1050 Connecticut Ave., N.W. New York, NY 10112 Washington, DC 20036-5306 (202) 995-8500 Counsel for NBC Universal, Inc. and NBC Telemundo License Co. September 21, 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Table of Contents............................................................................................................................. i INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1 ARGUMENT...................................................................................................................................5 I. THE COMMISSION’S NEW INDECENCY ENFORCEMENT REGIME VIOLATES THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT. ...........................................5 II. THE CURRENT INDECENCY REGIME, AS IT RELATES TO POTENTIALLY OFFENSIVE WORDS, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. ............................6 A. The Current Indecency Regime Is Unconstitutionally Vague And Impermissibly Chills Protected Speech.
    [Show full text]
  • Why the First Amendment Must Protect Provocative Portrayals of the Prophet Muhammad Daniel Ortner
    Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy Volume 12 | Issue 1 Article 1 Winter 2016 The eT rrorist's Veto: Why the First Amendment Must Protect Provocative Portrayals of the Prophet Muhammad Daniel Ortner Recommended Citation Daniel Ortner, The Terrorist's Veto: Why the First Amendment Must Protect Provocative Portrayals of the Prophet Muhammad, 12 Nw. J. L. & Soc. Pol'y. 1 (2016). http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/njlsp/vol12/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. Copyright 2016 by Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law Vol. 12, Issue 1 (2016) Northwestern Journal of Law and Social Policy The Terrorist’s Veto: Why the First Amendment Must Protect Provocative Portrayals of the Prophet Muhammad Daniel Ortner1 I. INTRODUCTION On Wednesday, January 7, 2015, armed gunmen entered the offices of French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo and killed employees and editors of the magazine in probable retaliation for the publication of satirical cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad.2 The attack on Charlie Hebdo has contributed to the debate over whether publication of speech that is likely to provoke violent reactions from religious extremists should be permissible.3 Some have argued that such speech should be prohibited in order to prevent responsive violence and terrorism.4 Recently, a school of journalism dean argued in USA Today that the publication of cartoons that insult the Prophet Muhammad 1 Daniel Ortner, J.D.
    [Show full text]
  • Gruda Mpp Me Assis.Pdf
    MATEUS PRANZETTI PAUL GRUDA O DISCURSO POLITICAMENTE INCORRETO E DO ESCRACHO EM SOUTH PARK ASSIS 2011 MATEUS PRANZETTI PAUL GRUDA O DISCURSO POLITICAMENTE INCORRETO E DO ESCRACHO EM SOUTH PARK Dissertação apresentada à Faculdade de Ciências e Letras de Assis – UNESP – Universidade Estadual Paulista para a obtenção do título de Mestre em Psicologia (Área de Conhecimento: Psicologia e Sociedade) Orientador: Prof. Dr. José Sterza Justo Trabalho financiado pela CAPES ASSIS 2011 Dados Internacionais de Catalogação na Publicação (CIP) Biblioteca da F.C.L. – Assis – UNESP Gruda, Mateus Pranzetti Paul G885d O discurso politicamente incorreto e do escracho em South Park / Mateus Pranzetti Paul Gruda. Assis, 2011 127 f. : il. Dissertação de Mestrado – Faculdade de Ciências e Letras de Assis – Universidade Estadual Paulista Orientador: Prof. Dr. José Sterza Justo. 1. Humor, sátira, etc. 2. Desenho animado. 3. Psicologia social. I. Título. CDD 158.2 741.58 MATEUS PRANZETTI PAUL GRUDA O DISCURSO POLITICAMENTE INCORRETO E DO ESCRACHO EM “SOUTH PARK” Dissertação apresentada à Faculdade de Ciências e Letras de Assis – UNESP – Universidade Estadual Paulista para a obtenção do título de Mestre em Psicologia (Área de Conhecimento: Psicologia e Sociedade) Data da aprovação: 16/06/2011 COMISSÃO EXAMINADORA Presidente: PROF. DR. JOSÉ STERZA JUSTO – UNESP/Assis Membros: PROF. DR. RAFAEL SIQUEIRA DE GUIMARÃES – UNICENTRO/ Irati PROF. DR. NELSON PEDRO DA SILVA – UNESP/Assis GRUDA, M. P. P. O discurso do humor politicamente incorreto e do escracho em South Park.
    [Show full text]