DİL VE KÜLTÜR BİSMİLLAH

LANGUAGE AND CULTURAL MEANING

1. What is the relationship between cultural models and language? Give

examples.
Different cultures have different sayings for the same phrases.
Taken together, cultural meanings and models form a unique worldview, providing both
an understanding of the world as it is thought to be and a blueprint for the way one
ought to behave. Reality is not absolute or abstract; it is lived within familiar contexts of
social behavior and cultural meanings.

2. Who are Edward Sapir and Benjamin Whorf? What did they study? What did
they speculate about language and language use? What is the Sapir-Whorf
Hypothesis?

Both men studied the languages and cultures of several Native American peoples. Sapir
argued that all human experience is, to some extent, mediated through culture and
language. Once a language provides a word for an objector activity, that object or event
becomes culturally significant. The relationship of vocabulary and cultural value is
multidirectional. Speakers give names (words) to important entities and events in their
physical and social worlds,and those entities and events, once named,become culturally
and individually noticed and experienced.

Degree of specialization: türkçede akrabalık kelimeleri varies, eskimolarda kar için çok
kelime var etc.
Linguistic lag: kültür hızlı değişir ama dil o kadar hızlı değildir arada bir fark oluşur.

Benjamin Whorf, who had been a student of Sapir, investigated whether grammatical
structures provide frame works for orienting speakers' thoughts and behaviors. He
believed that the influence of language can be seen both through vocabulary and
through more complex grammatical relations.

İngilizcede zaman bölünüyor daha soyut bir kavram ve kategorilere hapsediyor. Tenseler
bazı dillerde yok, yani zamanı farklı algılıyorlar.
Hopi ise eylemin nasıl ve ne kadar yapıldığı vurgulayan bir zaman sistemine sahiptir.

3. Recently, there has been a renewed interest about the relationship between
language, culture, and thought. Explain the following studies:
a. John Lucy’s study on English and Yucatec
John Lucy(1996) developed an analytic and experimental design studying the
effects of grammatical requirements on memory and sorting tasks with speakers of
English and Yucatec, a Mayan language spoken in Mexico. In remembering and
 sorting, speakers of English paid attention to number for animate beings and
objects but ignored number for substances. Speakers of Yucatec paid attention to
number only for animate beings, ignoring number for everything else. In English
count nouns are preceded directly by a numeral modifier (e.g., one dog, two cats).
In contrast, Yucatec numerals are used in conjunction with a classifier that
provides information about the shape, texture, or other material properties of the
noun referent.
2. Lera Boroditsky’s study on English and Mandarin Chinese
questioned whether speakers of languages that differ in the ways they talk about
time also think about time differently. According to Boroditsky, concepts of time
have both universal and language-specific features. Languages may vary in the way
in which they develop metaphors and abstract conceptualizations of time.
"language shapes thought. One's native language appears to exert a strong
influence overhow one thinks about abstract domains like time"
İngilizcede zaman horizontal. Çincede vertical.
3. John Gumperz’s study on conversational inference
John Gumperz and his associates focuses on analyzing the roleofwhat Gumperz
calls "conversational inference" defined as "the situated and presupposition-
bound interpretive processes by which interlocutorsassess what they perceive at
any one point in averbal encounter andon which they base their responses" When
people interact verbally with on another, they continually interpret and evaluate
their co-participant's speech in order to as certain not only its meaning but also its
intention. On the basis ofthese interpretations, each speaker responds to what he
or she perceives as the other person's meaning. However, when people learn
second or third (or more) languages, they may learn to properly usethe
pronunciations, words, and grammatical patterns of their additional language, but
they may unconsciously transfer the conversational inferences they learned with
their native language into verbal encounters in which they speak a nonnative
tongue. Therefore, they may misinterpret the meanings and intentions of their co-
participants regardless of the fact that they may understand the literal meaning of
the words spoken to them.

4. Explain the effect of culture on the following study fields related to lexical
categories
a. Semantic domains
A semantic domain is an aggregate of words, all sharing a core meaning, related to
a specific topic, for example, kinship terms, body-part words, and colors.
2. Lexical components
in some domains of vocabulary, cross-cultural comparisons uncover basic
differences in the ways that people perceive their universe. For example, study of
kinship terms (words used to name relatives) can reveal people's perceptionsof
their social relations.
3. Lexical classifications
 Research in vocabularies revealsthat, in some domains, distinctions areclear and
unequivocal, whereas in others, components and categories are morecomplex. In
a domain such as kinship, people are easily differentiated from one another; for
example, a person is either female or male, either younger or older than the
speaker. But in other domains, items cannot be classified absolutely. In addition,
speakers may disagree about whether to include or exclude particular items in any
given category. And they need to know which aspects of an entity are critical in
determining the category to which the entity belongs. To classify words, speakers
need to know the defining characteristics of each class.
4. Ethnoscience
Ethnoscience refers to systems of classification that people construct to organize
knowledge of their universe. Studies of ethnoscientific domains in different
cultures demonstrate the variety of underlying assumptions that can be used to
group entities.
YETER ARTIK.

5. When labelling color terms, what is universal and what is cultural? Explain Berlin
& Kay’s theory of universal color categories.

According to the theory of Berlin and Kay, all cultures recognize basic color categories
that are linguistically codified to identify the colors black, white, red, green, yellow, blue,
brown, purple, pink, orange, and gray. These are known as basic color terms, and their
order of appearance in a language follows the hierarchy of color concepts determined
by universalities in human perception. However, when using more specific color terms,
such as adornment colors like "gold" or "silver," there is greater cross-cultural variation
in labeling. Therefore, the distinction between basic and non-basic color terms reflects a
distinction between perceptually universal and culturally arbitrary.

6. How do we use focal meanings and prototypes when we classify? Are contexts or
cultural models relevant when we classify (i.e. Labov’s and Fillmore’s study)?

According to Labov and Fillmore, categories are organized around prototypes, which are
salient examples or focal meanings. These prototypes are central and easy to identify,
and they act as references for more peripheral members of the same category. Contexts
and cultural models are also relevant in classification, as the same category membership
can trigger different concepts in different contexts or cultures. Labov and Fillmore
demonstrate this in their study of the concept "going to," which has context-dependent
variations in meaning across different uses, such as habitual or planned future actions.
 7. How are concepts of space and location encoded in different languages?
(English, Guugu Yimithirr, Tzeltal)

Different languages encode concepts of space and location in distinctive ways. In

English, for instance, the system of absolute coordinates (north-south and east-west) is
standard. In Guugu Yimithirr, however, the cardinal directions (north-south-east-west)
are used for absolute orientation, even when describing small spatial relations. This is
because the Guugu Yimithirr people possess a unique knowledge and perceptual system
of orientation that has been learned and sustained over time. In the Tzeltal language,
there is a greater emphasis on vertical relations, and spatial language is structuralized
around the motion of water. The words for uphill and downhill, for instance, are also
used for upstream and downstream since the Tzeltal anticipate the effects water will
exert on their environment. Hence, it is clear from these examples that different
languages and cultures have their unique cognitive frames that shape how they encode
and decode ideas about space and location.

8. How can concepts of figure and ground differ in languages? (English, Tzeltal)

The concepts of figure and ground can be different across languages. In English, figure
and ground often rely on salience or focus of attention. The figure is typically what is
salient or in the foreground, while the ground is the context from which it stands out. In
Tzeltal, however, figure and ground operate more systemically, and their identification
depends on the locus of the attentionifer. One way this is shown is that in Tzeltal, the
same figure in a sentence can become the ground of another sentence, with no obvious
inherent prominence in either context. In this way, the distinction between figure and
ground is more context-dependent and relational in Tzeltal than in English.

9. Based on these studies, are there cognitive differences between the speakers of
these languages?

Based on these studies, it is clear that there are cognitive and cultural differences
between the speakers of different languages. Language shapes our perception,
cognition, and worldviews since different linguistic systems reflect different ways of
thinking and experiencing the world. For instance, the Guugu Yimithirr language's
orientation system is quite different from the typical English orientation system, which
relies more on landmarks than cardinal directions. Such distinctions in language and
cognition can have downstream effects on how we process information, make
judgments, and interact with others. Hence, by understanding these cognitive
differences, we can appreciate the diversity and richness of human culture and
experience.

10. How can spatial relationship concepts differ in languages? (on, in, under…)
Compare English and Tzeltal.

Spatial relationship concepts such as on, in, under, and others can differ significantly
across languages, reflecting different ways of thinking and perceiving space and
location. In English, such prepositions indicate spatial relationships in a more absolute
way, such as the position of one object or entity with respect to another. In Tzeltal,
however, the spatial relationships are often conveyed in terms of the direction and
motion of water, with the uphill and downhill also sometimes meaning upstream and
downstream. This means that in Tzeltal, the primary referent for spatial prepositions is
often the broader landscape, as opposed to the entities themselves. In this way, spatial
prepositions play a more systemic role in shaping broader cultural models and
conceptions of space. For instance, Tzeltal speakers may describe the relative positions
of objects as "above water" or "below water," depending on their relationships with
hills, valleys, and water bodies. This use of spatial prepositions in Tzeltal shows how
cultural ideologies of nature and landscape can be reflected in the language itself.

11. What are cultural presuppositions? How are they related to language? (Similar to
the first question, but this time give more examples with detailed subcategories)

Cultural presuppositions are assumptions, values, and beliefs embedded in a culture and
are usually taken-for-granted. They are often implicit and operate at a deep level to
shape cultural models of reality. These presuppositions can play out in various domains
of life, including social relationships, beliefs, and practices. In language, cultural
presuppositions can manifest themselves in various ways, including the use of lexical
items and idiomatic expressions. For instance, in English, "time is money" is an idiomatic
expression that reflects a cultural presupposition that time is a resource to be
maximized or wasted. Similarly, words like "success" or "achievement" reflect broader
cultural values around individualism and achievement.

A further example of cultural presuppositions is evident in the cognitive categorization

of the world. Various cultures categorize the world differently; for instance, in some
cultures, there is a distinction between kinship and non-kinship relationships or
between living and non-living entities. This categorical boundary reinforces cultural
values by privileging certain forms of relationality over others. In Japan, for instance, the
distinction between uchi (insiders) and soto (outsiders) is pervasive, and it shapes social
interactions, expectations, and norms.

Cultural presuppositions can also affect how languages are used to express politeness,
power, and social distance. For instance, Japanese language has different levels of
politeness, known as keigo, which are used to express different levels of social hierarchy
and distance. This shows how cultural presuppositions of social hierarchy and deference
are built into the language itself.

Finally, cultural presuppositions also underpin the socialization process, and they can
affect how children learn, develop and behave. For instance, cultural norms around
obedience and assertiveness can shape how children are socialized towards these
behaviors. In this sense, cultural presuppositions are deeply embedded in language and
other cultural practices, reflecting broader structures of power, identity, and social
relations.

12. What is metaphor? How is it connected to culture? Give examples on the

following metaphor categories paying attention to the implications of these
metaphors: Metaphors of kinship, Metaphors of the body

Metaphor is a figure of speech that involves a comparison between two seemingly

unrelated things to help explain or articulate an idea or concept. It is connected to
culture because metaphors are shaped by culture and can reveal underlying cultural
values, ideologies, and worldviews. Here are some examples of metaphor categories,
and their cultural implications:

Metaphors of kinship: In various cultures, kinship metaphors are used to reflect social
relationships and other social norms. For instance, in the Korean language, the word for
a younger sister is "dongsaeng," which is often used in familiar terms to denote social
hierarchy. Similarly, in the Akan language of Ghana, the terms for relatives also indicate
social position, with "okyerama" indicating a senior sister and "akwawe" indicating a
senior brother. These metaphors suggest that kinship is deeply connected to social
relations and the maintenance of social order.

Metaphors of the body: In many cultures, body parts have served as a source of
metaphor that reflects cultural values and social relations. For instance, in English, "put
your best foot forward" suggests that one should make a good impression, while "the
eyes are the window to the soul" suggests that the eyes convey deep emotions and
feelings. Similarly, in Japanese culture, the heart is often used metaphorically to denote
the center of thought and emotion. These metaphors suggest that the body and its parts
are deeply connected to personal and cultural identity.

In summary, metaphor is a powerful tool for language and cultural expression, with the
capacity to reflect cultural values, beliefs, and social relations. Metaphors of kinship and
the body serve as examples of how language and metaphor can embody cultural norms,
values, and identity.
LANGUAGE AND GENDER STUDY QUESTIONS

1. What is the difference between “sex” and “gender”? Is the concept of “sex”
completely free from the influence of society and culture

The term “sex” refers to a person’s biological existence as either a female or male
human being, and the term “gender” refers to a person’s cultural or social identity as
either a woman or a man (or a girl or a boy) in a particular society at a particular
historical moment. In this view, one’s sex is immutable and given at birth, whereas
one’s gender identity can change, depending on what cultural practices of masculinity or
femininity a person might choose to enact at different times.

As Penelope Eckert and Sally McConnell- Ginet write, “there is no obvious point at
which sex leaves off and gender begins, partly because there is no single objective
biological criterion for male or female sex”

Sex is based a complex combination of anatomy (in the form of internal and external
genitalia and reproductive organs), hormones (testosterone and estrogen are only two
of the many important hormones that affect sexual characteristics), and chromosomes
(usually, but not always, XX or XY).

Anomalies in any of these areas can result in what is known as an “intersexed”

individual – a phenomenon that is more common than many people realize because it is
often taboo to discuss babies who are not easily categorized as either male or female at
birth

In addition to these babies, many more individuals (estimates range between 1 and 4
percent of all births) are born with hormonal or chromosomal anomalies that only
become evident later in childhood or during puberty

2. What are some characteristics of gender?

Learned: As is the case with other sociocultural practices, children either unconsciously
adopt or are consciously instructed in gender-appropriate behavior that varies across
societies and throughout historical time.

Collaborative: Although it is individuals who engage in gendered activities, these

activities are learned in, and acquire meaning from, social contexts. Gender, like other
aspects of identity such as race or ethnicity, is a joint accomplishment that is con-
structed in and through interactions with others.
Something we do: Gender, according to Butler, is not a static and unchanging element
of someone’s identity but rather an ongoing process of doing that involves choices in
how that person dresses, acts,and speaks.

Involves asymmetry: Inequality is built into gender at a very fundamental level. Men and
women, and masculine and feminine ways of acting or speaking, are rarely considered
simply different; there are usually value judgments that accompany such assessments of
gendered difference. Men, and those things that are deemed masculine, are not always
more prestigious; there is complexity and variability depending on the particular social
context. Moreover, there are multiple masculinities and femininities even within one
society, so judgments about prestige or appropriateness will also vary

3. How is gender related to language? Explain the following:

Sexist usages in language

The study of language and gender is concerned with the ways in which we use language
to differentiate male and female identity and social roles. Sexist language refers to
language that devalues or excludes individuals based on their sex or gender identity. It is
important to note that sexist language is not limited to any one language, nor is it based
solely on the use of "male" or "female" pronouns. However, in general, sexist language
tends to reflect and reinforce traditional gender roles and stereotypes.

Sexist usages in language can take many forms, such as using masculine generics to refer
to both males and females, using derogatory terms to refer to women, or using
gendered language to reinforce traditional gender roles and stereotypes. It is important
to be aware of these practices and to strive for gender-neutral and inclusive language

Grammatical gender

Grammatical gender involves the use of gender categories in grammar to distinguish

between different types of nouns, pronouns, and adjectives. This can vary widely
between languages, with some languages having only two genders (masculine and
feminine), while others have additional gender categories, such as the neuter gender in
German or the animate/inanimate gender distinction in some Indigenous languages. It's
important to note that grammatical gender does not always align with the social or
biological gender of the referent, and can sometimes reflect arbitrary or culturally
specific associations

Differences in the way men and women speak

Research has shown that there is no single answer to this question that would be
applicable across all contexts. Men and women sometimes speak in similar ways, and
sometimes speak differently from each other – it all depends on who is speaking, to
whom, when, where, and to what audiences. However, many received notions, or
language ideologies, concerning the alleged differences in how women and men speak
have been disproved by scholars. Studies from different societies around the world have
shown that cultural norms and assumptions about gendered language use can vary
widely between communities, and that there is a diversity not just in how individuals
actually talk, but also in the cultural meanings and interpretations attached to different
linguistic practices.

4. Why using models of gendered speech can be unhelpful or harmful?

Using models of gendered speech can be unhelpful or harmful because they are based
on inaccurate stereotypes and generalizations. For example, the popular idea that
women are more emotionally expressive and verbally skilled than men or that men are
more assertive and uncooperative than women are broad generalizations that often fail
to capture the nuances of actual communicative behavior. Focusing on these untested
and culturally constructed language ideologies can therefore obscure more complex and
interesting questions about how people use language, as well as perpetuate sexism and
other forms of discrimination. Instead, it is important to approach gendered language
use in a critical and dynamic way that recognizes the diversity of communicative styles
and practices actually found in society.

Gender Similarities Hypothesis. According to Hyde (2005), the gender differences

model that dominates the popular media is inaccurate at best and harmful at worst
when it comes to most variables, including alleged gender differences in
communication. Verbal and nonverbal behaviors among males and females of various
ages. As Table 9.1 indicates, almost all of these behaviors showed gender differences
that were close to zero or very small. In the studies that Hyde analyzed, only two
communicative behaviors, spelling and smiling, showed moderate differences (both in
this case favoring females), and none showed large differences. “Stated another way,”
Hyde writes, “within-gender variability is typically much larger than between-gender
variability”

Girls produced slightly more talk than boys, though the researchers termed this
difference “negligible” (Leaper and Smith 2004:993). A later meta- analysis on
talkativeness among adults in 63 different studies also found a “negligible” difference,
though in the opposite direction. “Contrary to prediction, men tended to talk
significantly more than women,” the authors concluded
 5. Explain the gendered differences in language use in non-Western societies (i.e.
Madagascar, Papua New Guinea, Japan

Gendered differences in language use in non-Western societies can be highly context-

specific and vary depending on a range of social and cultural factors.

For example, in Madagascar, women were associated with more direct linguistic
practices, such as haggling in markets, that were typically seen as masculine in other
cultures. Men tended to use more indirect and subtle language in social interactions.
The most highly valued style involved indirectness and avoidance of affront, and so
women in Madagascar were looked down upon because of their direct linguistic
practices and the language ideologies that led people to judge these practices as
appropriate only for children and the unsophisticated.

In Papua New Guinea, gendered patterns of emotion and communication were woven
together in culturally specific ways, such that women were seen as more likely to
express anger in explicit speech genres known as "kros."

In Japan, women were traditionally expected to use more deferential, polite language
forms than men, and this pattern persists in many domains of contemporary Japanese
society. "Japanese women’s language” began in the late nineteenth century, Inoue
argues, as “schoolgirl speech,” which, male commentators of the time claimed, was
“vulgar” and “lazy” because it omitted honorifics and used different utterance endings.
Eventually hearing on the TV and radio this “Japanese women’s language,” many people
in Japan came to associate this way of speaking with femininity, Japaneseness, and
modernity. Inoue calls this process one of indexical inversion because “it actively
constructs the very reality that it claims to be representing”

However, as with any research on language and gender, it is important to be mindful of

the potential for cultural stereotypes and biases to shape our interpretations of
communicative practices. Therefore, it is crucial to approach gendered linguistic
patterns in non-Western societies with sensitivity, respect, and a willingness to learn
from the people whose language use we seek to understand.
LANGUAGE, RACE, AND ETHNICITY STUDY QUESTIONS

1. Explain the folk theory of race and compare it to the statement on race of the
American Anthropological Association.
The folk theory: a belief in “race” as a basic category of human biological variation,
combined with a belief that each human being can be assigned to a race, or sometimes
to a mixture of races.
AAA says:
Races have more genetic differences within them than between them (so i can say the n
word?) and this has nothing to do with appearance.
it should not be read as arguing that race does not exist. Race is clearly an important
social category that influences people’s life trajectories and identities. Many scholars in
fact view it as a, or even the, central organizing principle in the United States

AI:
According to Jane Hill, a linguistic anthropologist, most white Americans hold a "folk
theory" of race and racism that is largely inaccurate. This theory includes a belief in race
as a biological category of human variation, and the assumption that everyone can be
assigned to a race or a mixture of races. Anthropologists and social scientists have
overwhelmingly rejected this theory. The American Anthropological Association's official
statement on race notes that human populations are not biologically distinct groups,
but rather that physical variation mostly lies within so-called racial groups. This means
there is more variation within racial groups than between them, and that physical traits
tend to occur gradually over geographic areas.

World IQ Map:
World Skin Color Map:

One drop rule: if yo dad is nigga u is nigga.

The concept of race provide us with insight into the cultural and social meanings people
associate with other kinds of perceived or actual biological differences, such as skin
color or hair type.

2. Explain the concept of racialization/racial formation giving examples from the

history of the United States, and the concept of whiteness.

What we know as white today didnt always used to be like that. Swedes and Germans
were “swarthy,” and he did not include them among the “white people,” who consisted,
according to Franklin, solely of the English and the Saxons. Irish immigrants were also
excluded from the white society. Jews were also discriminated (rightfully)

AI:
According to the sociologists Michael Omi and Howard Winant, race is a social and
historical concept that signifies conflicts and interests. Racialization is the process by
which people come to be divided into racial categories that are understood to have
different social, economic, and political meanings. This process often involves the use of
physical markers such as skin color to assign social meaning to groups of people.

In the United States, many different groups of people have been racialized over time.
For example, Irish immigrants were once excluded from the category of "white people"
and subjected to discrimination and oppression. Jews were also considered a separate,
inferior race, with a biological identity that justified discrimination and even genocide.
Even today, some white supremacists define Jews as nonwhite and in competition with
white people.

The concept of whiteness is closely related to racialization. Whiteness refers to the idea
of a racial category that has been historically constructed to hold social, political, and
economic power. Originally, whiteness in the United States was limited to people of
English or Nordic descent. Over time, however, new groups were absorbed into the
category of "white people" as a way of consolidating white racial power. Today,
whiteness continues to be a powerful racial category, with significant social, economic,
and political implications.

3. How can racial classification and ethnic identity formation be employed in

politics? With reference to the Mongol and Tharu communities in Nepal, are
the concepts of race and ethnicity fixed and stable?

Brazilian racial categories that intersect in complicated ways with class, gender, and
sexuality.

There is nothing like the black–white binary commonly attributed to the United States,
and until recently, the concept of “race” was not mentioned in public debates at all.
Instead, caste, ethnicity, and religion have been the most salient forms of social
differentiation for Nepalis.

Tibeto- Burman ethnic groups claim that there are three main races in the world.
1-) whites
2-) NIGGAS (apes)
3-) rice ppl (hide your dog)

The politician was attempting to unite a number of linguistically and culturally diverse
ethnic groups, such as Rais, Magars, Limbus, Gurungs, and Sherpas, under the umbrella
of one political party, the Mongol National Organization (MNO) The hope was that
unifying these disparate but similarly disadvantaged groups would help them oppose
Nepal’s high-caste Hindu ruling groups.
Tharus on the other hand (kitapta çizdim)

AI:
Racial classification and ethnic identity formation can be employed in politics as a way of
mobilizing people around common issues and interests. By defining groups of people as
members of a particular race or ethnic category, politicians can create a sense of shared
identity and solidarity that may not have existed before. This can be a powerful tool for
groups that have historically been excluded from political power.

The case of the Mongol National Organization (MNO) in Nepal is an example of this. The
MNO attempted to unite various indigenous ethnic groups, such as Rais, Magars,
Limbus, Gurungs, and Sherpas, under the umbrella of one political party by invoking a
tripartite racial classification that divided people into black (Negro), red (Mongol), and
yellow (Asian) categories. The goal was to create a sense of shared identity and
solidarity among these diverse groups, who had struggled for political rights and
recognition in Nepal.

Similarly, the Tharu ethnic identity in Nepal was constructed in response to the
country's caste system that placed all Tharus in the same key classification in 1854.
While most Tharus share much more in common linguistically and culturally with non-
Tharus living near them than they have with Tharus from other parts of Nepal, the
Nepali state grouped all Tharus together in its caste and ethnic group classification.
Thus, Tharu elites created an organization designed to promote a pan-Tharu ethnic
identity.

However, as in the cases of MNO and Tharu, the concepts of race and ethnicity are not
fixed and stable. These concepts are continually being created and re-created anew;
objective distinctions that are drawn between them are complex and constantly
changing. Rather the racial and ethnic identities are constructed and can change over
time due to different political, economic, social, cultural, and historical contexts.

4. What are the differences between racial and ethnic discourses according to
FNAF Bonnie Urciuoli? How is the use of language related to these discourses?

Racial discourses “frame group origin in natural terms.” Racialized people are
considered out of place; they are dirty, dangerous, and unwilling or unable to
participate constructively in the nation-state.

Ethnic discourses, in contrast, “frame group origin in cultural terms” ethnicized people
are considered safe, ordered, and “a contribution to the nation-state offered by striving
immigrants making their way up the ladder of class mobility”
Language differences are often racialized. That is, an inability to speak English, or an
inability to speak English “without an accent” (cf. Lippi-Green 1997), marks someone as
disorderly and unlikely to experience social mobility – as someone, in other words, who
does not fully belong in the United States.

AI:

According to Bonnie Urciuoli, racial discourses frame group origins as natural and
biological, while ethnic discourses frame group origins as cultural and social. Racialized
people are typically viewed as out of place, dangerous, and unable to participate
constructively in society. Ethnicized people, on the other hand, are seen as safe,
ordered, and making a contribution to society.

Language plays a crucial role in both racial and ethnic discourses. In the case of racial
discourses, language differences are often racialized. An inability to speak the dominant
language, or an inability to speak the language "without an accent" are viewed as signs
of disorderliness, and it marks someone as unlikely to experience social mobility. In this
way, people who speak in ways that deviate from the dominant linguistic norms may be
excluded from full social participation on the basis of their speech.

In contrast, the cultural differences that are said to be characteristic of ethnicized

people often include language, and in fact, ethnic identity may be closely associated
with a particular language or dialect. The use of this ethnic language or dialect, rather
than being viewed as a problem, is recognized and valued as part of what the particular
ethnic group brings to society.

Overall, language is central to the ways in which both race and ethnicity are
conceptualized and experienced, with both playing an important role in the formation of
social identities and power relations.

5. What is Ebonics? (Black English (nigganese) ) What are some common attitudes
to Ebonics?

The majority of English speakers think that AAVE is just English with two added factors:
some special slang terms and a lot of grammatical mistakes. They are simply wrong
about this. (yea they forgot bomboclaat)

Average nigger english 🔝

AI:
Ebonics is a term that was coined in the 1970s to describe the distinctive English dialect
that is spoken by some African American communities in the United States. This dialect
is often referred to as "Black English" or "African American Vernacular English" (AAVE).

Ebonics has been the subject of much debate in the United States, with some people
arguing that it is a separate language with its own grammar and structure, while others
see it as a dialect of English. Some people view Ebonics as a legitimate, culturally rich
form of expression that should be recognized, valued, and preserved. Others see it as an
inferior form of English that represents a lack of education or a failure to assimilate into
mainstream American culture.

Common attitudes towards Ebonics appear to be shaped by broader cultural

stereotypes of Black people and a perceived lack of intelligence. These attitudes can
lead to discrimination and devaluation of Black people and their linguistic practices.
While attitudes towards Ebonics have been changing over time, with many people
recognizing and embracing its cultural significance, the dialect is still often stigmatized.

6. Is Ebonics gettin rule-governed? Give at least three examples.

Yea tf.

Habitual be: he be singing. Preverbal markers as “come,” “go,” “done,” and “steady”
Such verb forms are often overlooked or misunderstood by standard English speakers
because they sound just like standard English words, and yet their usages and meanings
are totally different – and totally rule-governed.

Copula deletion: she happy

Double negatives: i dont want nothing.

Reduction of final consonants: p k t b d g

Pronouncing ask as aks. different as dif rnt

7. Are there some linguistic criteria to differentiate between dialects and

languages? Through which processes can a variety be labelled a language or a
dialect?

There is no criteria or metric.

The distinction is often a political one that is enmeshed in relations of power and
inequality.

As discussed in Language, Race, and Ethnicity.pdf on page 16, there is no clear set of
linguistic criteria that can definitively determine whether a particular way of speaking
should be classified as a dialect or a language. Instead, the distinction is often a social
and political one that is enmeshed in relations of power and inequality.

Varieties of speech associated with nation-states or dominant groups in a given society

are typically referred to as languages or "standard" dialects, while those associated with
less prestigious minority groups that do not control a nation-state are generally
considered "mere" dialects and often labeled as "non-standard" dialects. The distinction
between a language and a dialect is thus based less on linguistic facts and more on
political and social factors.

Other factors that may influence whether a particular variety of speech is classified as a
language or a dialect include historical and cultural factors, such as the influence of
religion, literature, or political power.

At the end of the day, the classification of a particular variety of speech as a language or
a dialect is often a contested and complex matter. There are no clear-cut linguistic
criteria to make the distinction and the process for how a variety is labeled a language
or a dialect can vary depending on various social, political, and historical factors.

8. How can everyday language produce and reinforce racism? Discuss this issue
by referring to “mock Spanish”, “spiral effect”, and “conversational
agreement”.

AI:
Everyday language can be used to produce and reinforce racism.

One example is the phenomenon of "mock Spanish," where English speakers insert
Spanish words or phrases into their speech in a way that is meant to be humorous but
can actually reproduce negative stereotypes and reinforce power imbalances between
English and Spanish speakers. This practice can contribute to the marginalization and
stigmatization of Spanish speakers, perpetuating racist attitudes in society.

Another way that everyday language contributes to racism is through what is called the
"spiral effect." This refers to a process in which mildly negative comments about a
particular racial or ethnic group are reinforced by conversational agreement,
emboldening speakers to make more blatantly negative or racist remarks. This effect
can be particularly powerful in social situations where a group dynamic is at play, and
participants are seeking validation and approval from their peers.

Furthermore, conversational agreement plays an important role in reinforcing racializing

or racist discourses already present in society. When people receive positive feedback
for their mildly negative comments, they become more likely to make increasingly
negative and eventually outright racist remarks. This reproduces and sustains the
existence and strength of these ideologies.

These examples show that everyday language can be used to promote, reinforce, and
perpetuate racial and ethnic hierarchies. In this way, it is essential to be aware of the
ways in which language can normalize and perpetuate racist attitudes and to challenge
those attitudes whenever possible.

White ppl bad niggas good ALTINI ÇİZDİM

9. Explain linguistic profiling by giving examples on related research.

Linguistic profiling is the practice of making assumptions, judgments, or discriminating
against someone based on their way of speaking. It has been studied extensively in the
context of fair housing laws in the United States, as landlords often use this kind of
profiling to vet potential tenants.

One example of research into linguistic profiling was conducted by John Baugh in the
early 2000s. In his experiments, Baugh called landlords and inquired about the
availability of an apartment using two different ways of speaking: Standard American
English (SAE) and African American Vernacular English (AAVE). Baugh found that his
AAVE voice received less than half the number of calls back from the landlords,
indicating a bias against the use of this dialect in the realm of housing.

A similar experiment was conducted by Rubin and Smith in the 1990s. In this study,
undergraduate students heard a four-minute recorded lecture by a native speaker of
English. Half of the students were shown a slide of a white woman while they listened to
the lecture and were told that this was the speaker, while the other half were shown a
slide of an East Asian woman. The students who saw the East Asian woman tended to
report that the speaker had a foreign accent, and they even did significantly worse on a
comprehension quiz on the material in the lecture - even though they had heard exactly
the same lecture as the other group.

These studies reveal how perceptions of a person's speech based on their race,
ethnicity, or accent can lead to harmful biases and discrimination, particularly in areas
such as housing, employment, and education. Efforts to reduce and eliminate linguistic
profiling are important in ensuring equality and fairness in society.
SOCIAL STATUS STUDY QUESTIONS

1. What does Fischer’s study on g-dropping tell us about the characteristics of

sociolinguistic research? What do sociolinguists study?

Fischer's study on g-dropping in New England school children tells us that sociolinguistic
research focuses on the study of language variations and their social implications, such
as social status and class. Sociolinguists investigate how language is used in different
social contexts, including the interactions between various social identities, such as
ethnicity, age, gender, and class. In short, sociolinguistics is the study of the relationship
between language and society.

2. How do we determine status?

Status can be determined through a complex scorecard involving factors such as type of
home, neighborhood, income, and occupational prestige. Occupational prestige is seen
as a significant factor in determining social class in some recent research. The idea of
determining social status and class has been around for a while, and social scientists
(especially early sociologists) have created basic distinctions that include lifestyle and
life chances. However, determining social status can have more complex relationships
with speech and language use.

Karl Marx identified two antagonistic classes: the capitalists, who owned the means of
production, and the proletariat, who worked for the capitalists. This means that
according to Marx, status and class are determined by one's relationship to the means
of production - those who own the means of production have higher status and more
power, while those who do not have a lower status and less power.

3. Explain Labov’s department store study and the idea of borrowed prestige.

Labov's department store study (2006/1966) focused on the pronunciation of the post-
vocalic (after a vowel) 'r' sound in New York City speech. He noticed a range of different
use of the 'r' sound correlated with social class. In the study, he found that while there
was an overall pattern of lower social class speakers using fewer 'r' sounds than higher
social class speakers, this pattern did not hold consistently. For example, some lower
social class speakers used more 'r' sounds as a way to mimic higher social classes, while
higher social class speakers used fewer 'r' sounds when trying to connect with lower
social classes. This is known as 'borrowed prestige', the idea that speakers will use
features of speech associated with higher social classes as a way to increase their own
social status. Overall, Labov's study was groundbreaking in demonstrating the
relationship between speech and social status by showing how linguistic behavior can
be used as a marker of one's social identity.

4. What association does Labov point to between the social class variables and
formality of speech? What is the crossover effect?

Labov suggests that the relationship between social class and language use is complex
and that it also depends on the context of speech. One of the key associations he points
to is between social class variables and the formality of speech. In particular, he found
that speakers, regardless of their social class, used more phonological features
associated with higher status in formal speech contexts such as interviews. He also
noted that lower-class speakers may adopt a more formal way of speaking in specific
settings as a way to "cross-over" into a higher social class. The crossover effect suggests
that speakers can adjust their language use to align with the expectations and norms of
another social group.

5. How can this crossover effect be explained? (linguistic insecurity-linguistic

market)

The crossover effect can be explained by two main factors: linguistic insecurity and the
linguistic market. Linguistic insecurity refers to a speaker's belief that their speech or
accent is stigmatized or considered less valuable by society. This insecurity can motivate
speakers to adjust their language use when they interact with people from higher social
classes in an attempt to sound more prestigious. The linguistic market is the idea that
language and linguistic resources have an economic value in different social contexts.
Speakers who have access to a wider range of linguistic resources may have an
advantage in certain settings, such as job interviews or professional contexts. Therefore,
speakers may also use more prestigious forms of language to signal proficiency and
enhance their social and economic opportunities.

6. Are we always aware and in control of the linguistic features that we use? What
is salience? What are stereotypes, sociolinguistic markers, indicators?

We are not always aware and in control of the linguistic features that we use.
Sometimes, linguistic variation seems to have no social meaning at all, and we use
certain features unconsciously. However, certain linguistic features may have more
salience than others, meaning that they are more noticeable or more likely to be
associated with certain social groups or identities.
Stereotypes and sociolinguistic markers are some of the types of linguistic features that
can have added salience. Stereotypes are widely held beliefs about the characteristics
and behaviors of certain social groups. Sociolinguistic markers, on the other hand, are
linguistic features that are commonly associated with certain social groups and are used
to index specific social meanings or identities. Indicators are linguistic features that are
used to signal a particular function or meaning in a given context, and may or may not
be associated with social identity or status.

Overall, these features can have a powerful impact on how we perceive ourselves and
others in terms of social status or identity.

7. How is social mobility related to the rigidity of linguistic boundaries?

Social mobility may be related to the rigidity of linguistic boundaries, but the
relationship is complex. On the one hand, some studies have found that individuals from
lower social classes who are able to move up the social ladder may also experience
linguistic shifts, as they adopt certain linguistic features associated with their new social
status. On the other hand, there is also evidence to suggest that linguistic boundaries
can hinder social mobility by causing people to be judged and perhaps excluded based
on their accent or language use. In other words, the rigidity of linguistic boundaries can
make it more difficult for people to change their social status and gain access to new
opportunities.

8. Explain the transformations in the British class system and the role of language in
social mobility.

The British class system has undergone significant transformations since the 20th
century. One important change has been a shift towards a more fluid and fragmented
class structure, in which traditional markers of social class such as occupation and
income have become less clear-cut. This shift has led to the emergence of new social
groups and identities, and it has also opened up new possibilities for social mobility.

Language plays an important role in this process of social mobility. While the British
class system has historically been associated with specific, regionally-based dialects and
accents, these dialects are becoming less correlated with social class over time.
Research has shown that people from working-class backgrounds are increasingly likely
to adopt more regionally-neutral or "standard" forms of English to enhance their job
prospects and social mobility. Similarly, individuals from higher social classes may adopt
certain features of working-class speech to signal their connection to certain cultural
trends or to fit in with a particular group.
However, the role of language in social mobility is complex and multifaceted. On the
one hand, language use can be an important factor in shaping people's perceptions of
social class and identity, which can have implications for opportunities and outcomes in
life. On the other hand, the relationship between language and social class is not
deterministic, and individuals from diverse linguistic and social backgrounds can
experience social mobility under the right conditions.

9. Explain the tendency of hypercorrection in the 19th century and give examples on
the upper and non-upper vocabulary.

Hypercorrection was a linguistic phenomenon that occurred in the 19th century, in

which certain speakers over-corrected their language use in an attempt to sound more
educated or prestigious. This tendency towards hypercorrection was particularly
common among the middle classes, who were aspiring to upward mobility and social
status.

One example of hypercorrection involved the use of certain words or pronunciations

that were associated with the upper classes, even if these words were not commonly
used by the speaker's own social group. For example, some middle-class speakers might
have used the upper-class term "shall" instead of "will", even if it was not a commonly
used among their peers. Similarly, other speakers might have adopted non-regional
pronunciations, such as using a "standard" (i.e. non-regional) accent or pronouncing
rhotic "r"s, to sound more Western or metropolitan.

However, hypercorrection was not limited to the adoption of upper-class vocabulary or

pronunciation. It also involved the overuse of certain grammatical constructions or
linguistic features that were perceived as "correct" or "proper" but were not commonly
used in everyday language. For example, some speakers might have overused the
double negative ("I don't have none"), which was considered non-standard, in an
attempt to sound more correct or educated.

Overall, hypercorrection was a linguistic phenomenon that arose from social and
cultural aspirations towards upward mobility and prestige. While it could involve the use
of upper-class vocabulary or pronunciation, it could also involve overusing certain
grammatical constructions or linguistic features that were perceived as prestigious.
 10. How do the prestige/standard varieties form? How did the southern dialect
become the standard variety of British English?

Prestige or standard varieties of a language typically develop through a combination of

historical, social, and cultural factors. In general, these varieties tend to reflect the
language use of dominant or influential social groups, such as political elites, the media,
or educational institutions. Over time, these language forms become codified as correct
or more prestigious than other dialects, and they are often associated with certain
geographic areas or social classes.

Regarding British English, the Southern dialect became the standard variety in part due
to political and historical factors. During the 16th and 17th centuries, London emerged
as an important political and economic center, and it became the seat of the British
monarchy, government, and legal system. As a result, the dialect spoken in London and
the surrounding Southeastern region became associated with power and influence, and
over time, it came to be seen as the "correct" or "proper" form of English. This dialect
was also particularly influential in the development of written English, as the first
standardized grammars and dictionaries were produced by writers from London and the
Southeast.

The spread of London English as the standard British dialect was also facilitated by the
growth of mass media and communication networks in the 19th and 20th centuries.
Radio, television, and other forms of media typically used a standardized form of English
that was based on Southern pronunciation and vocabulary, further codifying this form of
English as the "correct" or "prestigious" variety. Today, Southern British English is still
typically seen as the standard or prestige dialect, although there is growing recognition
and appreciation for other regional dialects and language forms.

11. Discuss the attitudes to standard and non-standard varieties in terms of

correctness and unmarked/markedness.

Attitudes towards standard and non-standard varieties of language are linked to notions
of correctness and markedness. Standard varieties of a language are generally perceived
as more correct or proper than non-standard, regional, or vernacular varieties, which
are often stigmatized as being less educated or cultured. This perception of correctness
is often linked to the use of certain grammar and vocabulary rules, lexicon, and
pronunciation, which are codified and taught through educational systems and linguistic
authorities.

In terms of markedness, standard varieties are typically unmarked or neutral, while non-
standard varieties are marked or salient. Unmarkedness refers to the degree to which a
linguistic form or feature is associated with the "normal" or expected patterns of
language use. If a language form is unmarked, it is typically seen as culturally neutral or
universal, whereas if a form is marked, it is seen as more specific or associated with a
particular dialect or register of language use.

Thus, standard varieties are generally seen as unmarked, and non-standard varieties are
seen as marked. Non-standard features tend to be associated with specific geographic
regions, social groups, or ethnic identities, and they can signal certain aspects of the
speaker’s identity. This can result in either positive or negative evaluations of non-
standard varieties, depending on the context of language use and the social attitudes of
the interlocutors.

Overall, attitudes towards standard and non-standard varieties of language reflect social
and cultural beliefs about language use and correctness. While standard varieties are
typically seen as more correct and unmarked, non-standard varieties can carry distinct
meanings and cultural associations that vary depending on the context of language use
and the social norms of the local community.

12. How can a highly standard language be socially marked?

it is possible for a highly standard language to be socially marked. This can occur when
the standard language is associated with certain social groups or ideologies that are
stigmatized or marginalized in a given context. In some cases, speakers of a highly
standard language may be associated with certain elite or upper-class groups that are
perceived as out of touch or disconnected from the needs and perspectives of ordinary
people.

Alternatively, a highly standardized language can be socially marked if it is perceived as

culturally imperialistic or hegemonic. This can occur if the language in question is seen
as imposing a dominant cultural or linguistic ideology on other groups or communities,
particularly those with a history of colonization or marginalization. For example, if a
standardized variety of English is imposed on speakers of indigenous languages in a
postcolonial society, it may be seen as a tool of cultural domination or oppression.

In addition, a highly standardized language can be marked if it comes to be seen as

outdated or obsolete in the face of changing social norms and linguistic practices. This
can occur when a highly standardized language is associated with a specific historical
period or cultural context, and it is no longer able to reflect the diversity and complexity
of contemporary language use. In such cases, non-standard varieties or dialects may
emerge as more socially and culturally appropriate, and they may come to be seen as
more authentic or representative of current linguistic practices.

Overall, a highly standardized language can become socially marked if it is associated

with specific social groups, ideologies, or historical contexts that are stigmatized or
marginalized in a given context. This can result in negative evaluations of the language
form, even if it is highly formal or prestigious from a linguistic perspective.

13. What is overt and covert prestige?

Overt prestige refers to the prestige or status that is associated with the use of a highly
standardized or prestigious language variety. This type of prestige is typically rooted in
formal education, institutional power, or the cultural association of the language form
with an elite social class or cultural identity. Speakers of a language form that is overtly
prestigious are often perceived as educated, intelligent, and socially dominant.

In contrast, covert prestige refers to the prestige or status that is associated with the
use of a non-standard or vernacular language variety. This type of prestige is typically
based on social identity, linguistic solidarity, humor, or other markers of group
membership. Speakers of a language form that is covertly prestigious are often
perceived as authentic, humorous, or culturally savvy, even if their language use does
not conform to standard linguistic norms.

The distinction between overt and covert prestige reflects the complex social and
cultural factors that shape attitudes towards language use and linguistic diversity. While
overt prestige is often associated with formal education and institutional power, covert
prestige is often associated with cultural identity, humor, and social solidarity. Both
types of prestige can influence language variation and change, and can play important
roles in shaping the attitudes and identity of individual speakers and social groups.

14. What is the relationship between regional differences in language use and social
class? How can you explain this?

Here is often a complex relationship between regional differences in language use and
social class. In general, linguists have found that patterns of language variation are often
linked to various social factors, including regional geography, social class, ethnicity, and
cultural identity.
Regional differences in language use can reflect social and cultural differences in a
number of ways. For example, dialects may reflect historical patterns of migration,
settlement, and contact between different social groups, resulting in distinct linguistic
features and practices. In addition, regional languages or dialects may be associated
with different social groups or identities, which can further shape patterns of language
use and variation.

Specifically regarding the relationship between regional differences in language use and
social class, sociolinguists have found that certain language forms or features may be
associated with higher or lower social classes. For example, in some regions, regional
dialects or vernacular language features may be associated with lower social classes or
marginalized groups, while more standardized or formal language features may be
associated with higher social classes or with dominant cultural or linguistic ideologies.

Linguistic practices can also be used strategically by speakers to create or reinforce

social distinctions. Speakers from different social classes may use language in different
ways to assert their social identity, signal their cultural affiliations, or conform to social
norms of behavior. In this way, dialect and language use can become a marker of social
class, further reinforcing social hierarchies and power relations.

Thus, the relationship between regional differences in language use and social class is
complex and multifaceted, reflecting a range of social and cultural factors that shape
linguistic practices and attitudes.

CATEGORICAL: Categorical rules apply every time that they can apply
PROBABILISTIC: The opposite of categorical. Probabilistic constraints are not absolute
but rather tendencies in one direction
LINGUISTIC CONSTRAINT: A linguistic factor that governs the use of a particular variant
SOCIAL CONSTRAINT: A social factor like sex or age that governs the use of a particular
variant
STATUS: Social positions that society assigns to its members, or the differences between
social groups, in terms of prestige associated with them by others
VARIABLE: The abstract representation of a source of variation, realized by at least two
variants, for example gonna and will are variants of the variable future temporal
reference
VARIANT: The different expressions, or actual realizations of a variable, for example,
pronouncing the suffix –ing or –in
PRESTIGE: Variants associated with higher-status groups are considered prestige forms
STIGMA: A negative association, something viewed pejoratively
BORROWED PRESTIGE: Speakers’ setting and the role they’re playing can lead them to
use language features associated with a particular class
ASPIRATION: People often try to talk like who they want to be
CROSSOVER EFFECT: In formal situations, speakers using prestige variants even more
often than the group above them
SOCIAL HYPERCORRECTION: When speakers overdo what they see as the linguistic
requirements of a situation (usually in the direction of formality or use of standard
variants)
LINGUISTIC INSECURITY: The force hypothesized to drive people to use a variant that is
thought to be prestigious or correct and that is not part of their casual speech (cf. Labov
1972b)
LINGUISTIC MARKET: The important of standard language in the social and economic life
of the speaker
SALIENT/SALIENCE: Usually refers to a noticeable variant – one that stands out due to
physiological, social, and/or psychological factors
STEREOTYPE: A variable that is socially marked, that is very noticeable and often
discussed
MARKER: A variable that speakers are less aware of than a stereotype, but whose use
they can control in style shifting
INDICATOR: A variable that can show differences by age or social group and is often
associated with particular characteristics but is not subject to style shifting
SOCIAL MOBILITY: The ability to move between classes, often determined by how
defined class roles are in a particular culture
CASTE: In societies where mobility is more difficult and linguistic boundaries are more
rigid, social groups or castes, tend to be fixed, for example, traditional (Hindu) Indian
social structure
PRESCRIPTIVE: An approach to language that is focused on rules of correctness, that is,
how language “should” be used. Contrasted with descriptive
SOCIOLECT: A subset of language used by a particular social group or class. Sometimes
called social dialect.
UNMARKED: The opposite of marked, that is, a feature that does not get noticed.
OVERT PRESTIGE: Positive of negative assessments of variants that are in line with the
dominant norms associated with sounding “proper” and that people are aware of, often
coinciding with the norms of the media, educational institutions, or higher socio-
economic classes.
COVERT PRESTIGE: A norm or target that speakers unconsciously orient to, with a sort of
hidden positive evaluation that speakers give to other (presumably nonstandard) forms.
The linguistic equivalent of street credibility.
BASILECT: A term used in creole studies to refer to the most creole-like variety.

LANGUAGE, POWER AND THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF ANIMALS STUDY QUESTIONS

1. What is the concept of hegemony? How is hegemony related to the oppression

of animals?

The concept of hegemony refers to the ways in which dominant groups, through various
forms of power, maintain their control over subordinate groups. Hegemony is related to
the oppression of animals in that language, and discourse play a significant role in
shaping and maintaining beliefs and ideologies that support the use and exploitation of
animals for human gain. The language used by the animal product industry reinforces
the idea that animal oppression is natural and inevitable, which helps to maintain the
hegemonic power of these industries. Critical discourse analysis can be used to expose
the ways in which language is used to maintain the status quo and to challenge the
dominant discourse surrounding animal oppression.

2. How is the concept of ideology related to oppression and exploitation? Is it

explicit or implicit

Ideology is related to oppression and exploitation in that it often manifests itself

implicitly by being based on assumptions that are treated as if they were common sense
but which are, in fact, "common sense assumptions in the service of sustaining unequal
relations of power". Ideologies, embedded and disseminated through discourse,
influence the mental representations of a society's members, which in turn influence
their actions. The ideologies that are dominant in a particular society shape the beliefs
and practices of individuals, making oppression and exploitation appear to be natural
and inevitable. Thus, ideology helps to maintain existing power structures by reinforcing
the status quo.

3. How are animals constructed in mainstream discourses? Give some

information and examples in the following subheadings:

The word “animal"

Animals are often constructed in mainstream discourses as objects of use and
consumption, rather than as individual beings with their own interests and agency. The
language used to describe animals often reflects this objectification, for example referring
to them as "products" or "resources". In some cases, animals are also constructed in
discourses as threats, or as pests, which can help to justify violence against them. This
constructed image of animals as objects separates them from the category of moral actors
and erases their moral claims to be treated with respect and consideration, making it
easier to accept their exploitation for human benefit.

The constructed image of nonhuman beings suggested by prevalent discourses is an

objectified and exploited one in which the moral claims to respect and consider such
beings are erased, reduced, or overlooked.

Lexical choices around the concept of “meat”

The lexical choices around the concept of "meat" serve to conceal the origin and reality
of the flesh being consumed, distancing us from the suffering involved in animal
slaughter. For example, we refer to "beef" and "pork" rather than "bull" and "pig" when
talking about the meat we eat. Words like "carcass" are used instead of "corpse" and
"hide" instead of "skin" when referring to animal byproducts. This kind of language use
serves to hide the violence and pain of animal exploitation and to maintain a
comfortable psychological distance between consumers and the animals that are killed
for their food and other products.

Lexicalizations of slaughter/murder

The lexicalization of "slaughter" and "murder" in relation to humans and nonhuman

animals respectively, perpetuates the idea of human superiority over animals and
further reinforces the perception that animals are inferior. "Slaughter" is a word mainly
used to describe the killing of nonhuman animals for food production, while "murder" is
a legal term reserved for the killing of humans. These words carry different connotations
and affect our perception of the act described. Referring to human killing as "slaughter"
or to animal killing as "murder" could lead to a perceived shift in power dynamics.
Therefore, using these words interchangeably is comical and highlights the
inappropriateness of such usage.

Conventional metaphors and idioms about animals

Conventional metaphors and idioms about animals are overwhelmingly negative and
often perpetuate negative stereotypes of animals. Conventional metaphors such as
"greedy pig," "ugly dog," "stupid cow," and "big ape" are mostly negative and extend
through polysemous words, reflecting an ideology in which animals are considered
inferior. Furthermore, idioms such as "sick as a dog," "going to the dogs," "cat on hot
bricks," "running like a scalded cat," "flogging a dead horse," or "the straw that broke
the camel's back" mostly describe negative situations or cruelty. The only positive
idioms are often about wild birds and insects. These linguistic devices and expressions
reflect an animal objectification that reduces animals solely to negative aspects and
sustains negative perception of them.

Mass nouns used for animals

Animals are often referred to using mass nouns, especially in the context of safaris and
hunting. This usage transforms individual animals into generic representatives of a
group or species, effectively erasing their individual identities and uniqueness. Using
mass nouns removes the individuality of the animals, with the ideological assumption
that each animal is just a replaceable representative of a category. This could contribute
to the devaluation of individual animals and facilitate justifying their exploitation and
destruction.

The usage of the pronoun “it”

Referring to animals with the pronoun "it" instead of "he" or "she" objectifies them and
devalues their individuality. Using "it" reduces animals to mere objects that can be
bought, sold, and owned, which reflects the common sense belief that animals are mere
property. The use of "it" reinforces the idea that animals are things to be used, and this
can contribute to justifying their exploitation and suffering. The PDF points out that
referring to animals using "it" instead of gendered pronouns also further reinforces the
perception that nonhuman animals are inferior to humans.

4. How are animals constructed in the large-scale animal industry discourse? Give
some information and examples in the following subheadings:

The large-scale animal industry discourse constructs animals in ways that justify
mistreatment and exploitation. The animal industry discourse treats animals not as
subjects with their own interests, but rather as objects to be used for human benefit.
The discourse uses ideologies that present the oppression of the animals as natural and
inevitable, justifying the use of animals for food production. The discourse of
evolutionary biology is often invoked to explain farming practices as an extension of
natural predator-prey behavior. Referring to nonhuman animals as "livestock" further
contributes to their objectification, reducing them to mere commodities that can be
bought and sold. The goal of the animal industry discourse is to manufacture the implicit
consent required for the public to continue supporting the exploitative practices of
large-scale animal agriculture. Through language and discourse, the animal industry
aims to produce consent, which perpetuates the domination of nonhuman animals.
Classification of humans in the category of “predators”

The given pages do mention the classification of humans in the category of "predators"
with respect to their relationship with nonhuman animals. However, it is mentioned
that the semantic extension of the term "predators" does not include humans such as
the farmer, for whom housing offers no protection, in the context of modern animal
farming practices. The discourse of the animal industry presents humans as "protectors"
of domesticated animals from the dangers of wild predators, but there is no mention of
the classification of humans as "predators" in the context of their exploitation of
nonhuman animals. The discourse justifies exploitation and cruelty as necessary for
human survival, but does not use the concept of "predator" in the same way it is used to
describe other wild animals.

“Benign” discourses and euphemisms on animal farming

How the external discourse of animal industries presents the treatment of animals as
benign and uses euphemisms to describe the conditions in which they are kept. For
instance, the industries' language uses phrases like "modern animal housing" and
presents them as "well-lit", "well-ventilated" and "clean" (Harnack, p. 136), whereas in
reality the animals are often crammed into tiny cages under artificial lighting, and the
living conditions result in serious health problems for them. Similarly, the discourse of
the dairy industry uses quotation marks to distance intensive farming from the factory
image. It presents competing ideas as sensationally presented out of context. The
hypocrisies offered by these "benign" discourses allow animal industries to construct
the image of themselves as caring for their animals, while at the same time disguising
the actual conditions that the animals are subjected to, which often are cruel and
inhumane. By using euphemisms and presenting caring images, they suggest to the
public that animal farming is a harmless and necessary practice, protecting the food
supply and farmers' livelihood.

Use of metonymy in meat industries

Metonymy is used in the meat industry to obscure the suffering of animals and to
reinforce the idea of animals as resources to be exploited. Metonymy is a linguistic
device that attributes a property of something to refer to that something itself. It is used
in the meat industry to avoid using direct animal names and to focus attention away
from their individuality by referring to them instead by their dead flesh or their
anatomy. For example, cows are referred to as "beef," while veterinarians specializing in
bovine medicine are called "beef practitioners" instead of "cow practitioners." In
addition to de-emphasizing their individuality, such metonyms contribute to what Regan
calls "the system that allows us to view animals as our resources" (p. 36). Other
examples of metonymy cited in the PDF include referring to live birds by a cooking
method and to chicken carcasses as "product." These linguistic devices mask the truth of
the animals' treatment and prevent people from connecting with the animals they are
consuming

The discourse of resources in meat industries

Discourse of the animal product industry presents animals as resources to be used for
human benefit. This discourse presents the animal industry not as a matter of
exploitation, but as the production of vital resources necessary for human survival. The
animal farming and meat industries are presented as essential for providing food and
meeting nutritional needs. The discourse of resources is reinforced through the use of
metonymy, as it enables the animal product industry to refer to animals as "products" in
order to avoid acknowledging them as living beings, a status that would require legal
recognition of their rights. The discourse also emphasizes the importance of the meat
industry for the economy, presenting it as necessary to create jobs and to support the
livelihoods of farmers. This framing leads to the normalization of harmful practices and
justifies the mistreatment of nonhuman animals as necessary for human survival. The
aim of the discourse of resources is to present the exploitation of animals as natural and
inevitable, maintaining the implicit consent required for the public to continue
supporting the exploitative practices of the animal industry.

Use of nominalizations

Nominalizations are used in the animal industry to hide agency and avoid
acknowledging the sentient nature of animals. Nominalizations are nouns that refer to
processes or actions, rather than the agents or actors involved. In the context of animal
farming, nominalizations are used to describe incidents where animals are injured or
treated inhumanely without mentioning the animals themselves or the human agents
responsible for the violence.

For example, instead of saying "the farmer killed the pig," nominalizations are used to
avoid attributing the action to the farmer by saying "the pig was slaughtered."
Nominalizations allow the animal industry to distance itself from the actions that take
place and make animal exploitation sound less violent. This type of language can also
shift the focus to the economic implications of animal farming, such as "processing
yields," effectively obscuring the fact that animals are sentient beings capable of
experiencing pain and suffering.

Moreover, nominalizations are used in the animal industry to provide a veneer of

scientific objectivity. For instance, phrases like "bird damage" and "carcass damage" are
used instead of "injury," and "flock destruction" is used instead of "killing." These
nominalizations hide the violent nature of the actions involved and depersonalize the
animals involved. By using such language, the animal industry avoids acknowledging its
moral responsibility toward animals, thereby maintaining its status quo and preventing
social change

Technical jargon

Technical jargon is used in the animal industry to disguise the true nature of what is
happening to animals, thus making it easier to detach from their suffering. In this
context, technical language is used to refer to particular techniques or procedures in the
treatment of animals, such as "euthanasia," "evisceration," or "stunning parameters."
By using such language, the animal industry can create the illusion of a scientific and
rational approach to animal treatment and slaughter.

Moreover, technical jargon can create a sense of moral neutrality in the language used
to describe the industry's practices. By using language that is obscure and complicated,
the animal industry can avoid explicitly acknowledging that their practices involve
suffering and death for animals. For example, instead of saying "the animals are killed,"
the industry uses phrases like "the animals are culled" or "put down," making it seem
like a humane process.

Overall, technical jargon is used in the animal industry to avoid confronting the ethical
implications of the industry's practices by hiding them behind a veil of scientific
objectivity. This makes it difficult for people to understand the true nature and extent of
animal suffering within the industry and prevents them from connecting emotionally
with the animals. By depersonalizing animals in this way, the industry is able to maintain
a status quo of animal exploitation, devaluing their lives and masking the true reality of
their treatment

Extended metaphors

Extended metaphors are used in the animal industry to encourage people to disregard
animal suffering and to frame animals as resources to be exploited. An extended
metaphor is a comparison between two different things that lasts for an extended
period of time. In the animal industry context, metaphors are used to describe animals
as inanimate objects, such as machines or products, which makes it easier for people to
detach from the reality of animal exploitation and ignore their suffering.

For example, the metaphor of breeding sows as "valuable pieces of machinery" whose
function is to "pump out baby pigs like a sausage machine" frames these animals as a
commodity, rather than as living beings. This type of language reinforces the belief that
animals are only valuable for the resources they can provide, rather than for their
intrinsic worth as sentient beings. This encourages people to view animal exploitation as
a natural and inevitable practice, rather than as a moral issue that requires critical
examination.

Moreover, extended metaphors can serve to reinforce other linguistic devices used in
the industry, such as metonymy and technical jargon. By using metaphors such as "the
chicken is not a bird, it is a protein delivery system" the industry can avoid
acknowledging the reality of animal life, and present animals as mere components to be
manufactured, bought and sold.

In conclusion, extended metaphors are used in the animal industry to promote a culture
of exploitation by obscuring the reality of animal suffering and framing animals as
inanimate objects or commodities. By using such language, the industry can justify its
practices and avoid acknowledging the reality of animal suffering, maintaining an
indifferent society towards the plight of animals.

5. To summarize, how can discourses on animals maintain and reproduce animal

oppression and exploitation?

In summary, discourses on animals maintain and reproduce animal oppression and

exploitation by framing animals as resources to be exploited and obscuring their
intrinsic value as sentient beings. The use of language in the animal industry often
includes nominalizations, technical jargon, and extended metaphors to hide agency,
justify violence, and promote a culture of indifference toward animal suffering.
Furthermore, discourses in the animal industry present animal exploitation as natural
and inevitable, and use the language of science and economics to reinforce this notion,
which leads to the normalization of the mistreatment of animals. Through discourses,
the animal industry can avoid responsibility for violence and maintain the implicit
consent of society to support the exploitation of animals.