Language Sciences xxx (2014) 1–10

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Language Sciences
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/langsci

Slurs and the indexical field: the pejoration and reclaiming

of favelado ‘slum-dweller’
Mary Elizabeth Beaton*, Hannah B. Washington 1
Department of Spanish & Portuguese, The Ohio State University, 298 Hagerty Hall, 1775 College Rd., Columbus, OH 43210, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: We consider the application of the indexical field (Eckert, 2008) and orders of indexicality
Available online xxx (Silverstein, 2003) for the Brazilian Portuguese (BP) term favelado ‘slum-dweller’, which is
synonymous to morador de favela ‘slum-dweller’ but has acquired negatively charged
Keywords: indexical values. Building on discussions of the (re)appropriation or reclaiming of slurs and
Favelado other pejorized terms, such as the Cantonese word tongzhi (Wong, 2005, 2008), gay
Brazilian Portuguese
(McConnell-Ginet, 2002), queer (McConnell-Ginet, 2002, nigger (Jacobs, 2002; Camp, 2013;
Appropriation
Croom, 2011; Washington, 2010; inter alia), this study of favelado builds on Eckert’s (2008)
Indexical field
Slurs
indexical field and creates a model of lexical indexicality that explains the simultaneous
Reclaiming availability of both pejorative and powerful meanings. The positively-valenced reclaimed
meanings are contextually limited and require simultaneous access to pejorative mean-
ings. We propose that movement, or ‘sidestepping’ (Eckert, 2008), within the indexical
field fuels movement between pejorative and ameliorated meanings. This paper highlights
the importance of accounting for lexical indexical values in sociolinguistic study.
! 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

By examining the case of favelado ‘slum-dweller’ in Brazilian Portuguese, this paper explores the linguistic reclaiming of a
slur within Silverstein’s (2003) framework of orders of indexicality and Eckert’s (2008) elaboration of the indexical field. We
show that while lexical items can acquire indexical meaning in much the same way as phonological variables, the framework
of indexicality requires further abstraction to include lexical items. Because of their referential value, lexical items often point
outside of the speaker to objects or actions in the world, whereas phonological variables are generally thought to index
qualities or stances of the speaker. Much like phonological variables, lexical items that have taken on the negative qualities
associated with a stigmatized group can be adopted by that very group as a marker of solidarity (McConnell-Ginet, 2002;
Wong, 2005, 2008; Croom, 2011). This process of reclaiming is the driving force behind valence change. Our research
questions are thus twofold: 1) In what way does the concept of the indexical field need to be restructured to understand the
indexical relationships of lexical items?, and 2) How can we account for reclaiming within a model of indexicality?
The term favelado refers to a person who lives in a favela, a slum or shanty town found in large Brazilian cities, existing
alongside morador de favela (literally ‘inhabitant of the slum’). Unlike morador de favela, the term favelado is frequently used as
an adjective to refer to negative qualities associated with slum-dwellers, making possible its use as a slur. In this paper, we

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 (614) 292 4958; fax: þ1 (614) 292 7726.
E-mail addresses: beaton.8@osu.edu (M.E. Beaton), washington.232@osu.edu (H.B. Washington).
1
Tel.: þ1 (614) 292 4958; fax: þ1 (614) 292 7726.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2014.06.021
0388-0001/! 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Beaton, M.E., Washington, H.B., Slurs and the indexical field: the pejoration and reclaiming of
favelado ‘slum-dweller’, Language Sciences (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2014.06.021
2 M.E. Beaton, H.B. Washington / Language Sciences xxx (2014) 1–10

propose that favelado is distinct from the purported synonym morador de favela in associated indexical values. Using
Silverstein’s (2003) and Eckert’s (2008) models of indexicality, we propose that morador de favela maintains the referential
value exclusivelydreflecting membership in the group known as ‘slum dwellers’dwhile favelado invites a variety of addi-
tional socially-imposed connotations. The development of favelado parallels that of ‘ghetto’ in American English in that the
name for a marginalized space comes to index societally-perceived characteristics of the place and its population. While
words that refer to disadvantaged populationsdsuch as queer, nigger, and othersdoften become slurs, little research has been
done to systematize the metamorphosis of these terms from an indexical viewpoint. Furthermore, since the reclaiming of
favelado follows a different trajectory than that of other slurs, in that the retaking is not done by slum-dwellers themselves,
we offer a new perspective for the analysis of the (re)appropriation of pejorized lexical items.

2. Background

In his early work on indexes in morphosyntactic structures, Silverstein (1976) briefly discusses lexical items and argues
that their content cannot be fully accounted for through semantic analysis. In further developing this idea, Silverstein (2003)
proposes a model of indexicality in which macro social structures are mapped onto linguistic features or forms. Accordingly,
indexicality is represented by a series of orderings, such that the n-th order exists as a base on which social meaning can be
added. Silverstein explains that ‘nþ1st order indexicality is [.] already immanent as a competing structure of values
potentially indexed in-and-by a communicative form of the n-th order, depending on the degree of intensity of ideologization’
(Silverstein, 2003, p. 194). Building on this model, Eckert (2008) maps n-th and nþ1 order meanings within an indexical field.
In so doing, Eckert (2008, p. 463) explains that n-th order meaning ‘simply indexes membership in a population’, whereas nþ1
meanings develop through associations with perceived characteristics of the n-th order meaning. Neither Silverstein (1976,
2003) nor Eckert (2008) explores how lexical items fit into the seminal indexicality framework, nor do they seek to explain
the relationship between referentiality and orders of indexicality. However, the tools that Silverstein (2003) offers to account
for important social aspects of language have been employed by linguists concerned with the building blocks of style and
identity performance.
Silverstein’s (2003) model has been used to represent the indexical relationships between clusters of dialect features.
Johnstone et al. (2006), for instance, propose the use of this model for a wide range of features of Pittsburghese, including
/aw/ and /ay/ monophthongization, yinz for 2nd person plural, needs/wants þ past participle, etc. In this study, the authors
align consciousness of speech features with orders of indexicality and explicitly compare Labov’s tripartite division of style,
or attention paid to speech, with Silverstein’s orders. For Johnstone et al. (2006), the second order (nþ1) corresponds to the
concept of markers, which suggests that speakers have become aware of local features and their social meanings (i.e.,
indexical features are enregistered, such that listeners draw associations between a given feature and the place where it is
used). They propose that third order indexicals correspond to Labov’s designation of stereotype, often used in social com-
mentary and in the performance of local identity. This distinction highlights differences between the general level of social
consciousness toward the bundle of linguistic variables between the second and third order. The association of the feature
cluster typical of a particular group is found in stereotypes beyond place-level affiliations. For example, Croom (2013) dis-
cusses the cluster of features associated with working-class African American Vernacular English and the shared social and
historical identity of the group. The combination of linguistic features is therefore identified as marking a speaker as a
working-class African American or as a Pittsburgher, creating a link between linguistic features and social identity. Similarly,
in Popular Brazilian Portuguese spoken in favelas, verbal (Guy, 1981; Guy and Zilles, 2008) and nominal (Scherre and Naro,
1991, 1992) non-agreement, as well as s-deletion and denasalization (Guy, 1981), cluster together as features marking class
identity. Whereas listeners can make indexical associations between phonetic or morphosyntactic features and a given place
in Johnstone and colleagues’ (2006) model, our study of favelado considers a lexical item that denotes a particular place in
any major Brazilian city. Silverstein’s theory provides the basis upon which we build a model for the previously unexplored
realm of lexical indexicality. The data presented in later sections establish a connection between n-th and nþ1 order
meanings and changes in syntactic categories, offering evidence for a link between indexical meanings and grammaticali-
zation. We illuminate the relationship between the place name, its inhabitants, and the meanings that derive from wide-
spread social ideologies about slums. The use of favelado reflects a place-based slur, which much like racial slurs, func-
tions as ‘a linguistic resource to dehumanize [.] targets and identify them in “subhuman,” rather than fully human, terms’
(Croom, 2013, p. 189).
Items with semantic content, which are called ‘content-ful’ lexical items following McConnell-Ginet’s (2002) terminology,
have not been explored in as much depth as phonological and morphosyntactic variables in sociolinguistic inquiry (Wong,
2008; McConnell-Ginet, 2002). Eckert’s model for phonological variables has not been adapted for lexical items, which
function differently due to their referential value. That is, phonological variables are not always used with conscious control
nor do they contain semantic content. Wong (2008, p. 424) explains with reference to semantic change,
Since speakers are sometimes able to articulate their views on the semantic change of certain words (e.g., gay, queer), it
is often believed that semantic change (especially the semantic change of social category labels) operates at a higher
level of speakers’ consciousness than sound change.
Because of these and other inherent differences between phonological variables and content-ful lexical items, Eckert’s
indexical field requires modification to account for the indexical meanings associated with a lexical item like favelado.

Please cite this article in press as: Beaton, M.E., Washington, H.B., Slurs and the indexical field: the pejoration and reclaiming of
favelado ‘slum-dweller’, Language Sciences (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2014.06.021
 M.E. Beaton, H.B. Washington / Language Sciences xxx (2014) 1–10 3

Eckert (2008, p. 463) offers a model with which to understand the relationship between indexical meanings, explaining
that ‘nth order usage is always available for reinterpretation’. She introduces the idea of the indexical field with the example of
/t/ release in American English, which indexes traits of the speaker who produces it. Her field for this phonological variable
includes what she calls social types, permanent qualities, and stances, all of which are interrelated (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1. Reproduction of Eckert’s (2008) indexical field for /t/ release. Boxes denote social types, bold denotes permanent qualities, and gray denotes stances.

When a speaker uses /t/ release, the listener perceives an indexical relationship between the production of the /t/ and
some aspect of the speaker. The listener may perceive the speaker as taking a momentary stance (e.g., trying to be clear or
emphatic or angry), or the speaker may be perceived as having certain personality traits (e.g., the speaker is an articulate or
elegant individual). The listener might even go so far as to assign group membership to the speaker (e.g., the speaker is British
or a Gay Diva). A content-ful lexical item can invite similar indexical relationships for the listener, and it also points to
something in the world. That is, lexical items index something about the person or thing that they are being used to describe
and create a link between the referent and the sociocultural implications built upon the n-th order of the word. For example,
in a scenario in which the speaker asserts that x ¼ favela-like, where x is the referent, the link is made between the referent x
and the indexical qualities of the social construction of the favela. In other words, the context of the utterance helps the hearer
access which index(es) are relevant. Using Silverstein’s (1976) dichotomy between index types, we understand n-th order
meanings as presupposing and nþ1 order meanings as performative. In his model, presupposing aspects of grammar include
locative deictics and tense, which situate the speaker in time and space. Creative or performative indexes, on the other hand,
are chosen by the speaker to direct the discourse, such as second person pronominals (cf. Silverstein, 1976; Sinnott, 2013). For
lexical items like favelado, the presupposed types of index refer to the n-th order meaning, and the performative types of
index are those derived from associations with the n-th order (nþ1 meanings). In this study, we focus on the performative
nþ1 order meanings because they reflect place-based ideologies associated with the favela.
As we will explore in later sections, the negative nþ1 meanings of favelado are reconstructed, and the term is taken for in-
group solidarity. Cross-linguistically, many socially-charged words follow similar paths of polarity change in usage; in general,
the trend is that a term becomes associated with a specific group of people (whether racial, sexual, place-based, or other) and
takes on negatively-charged meanings from the association with a marginal group. Often the very terms that are used against
a marginalized group are taken by the group to mark positive in-group evaluation. A lexical item that exemplifies this tra-
jectory is the term queer, which originally indicated that a behavior or object was strange. By the early 20th century, it became
associated with non-normative sexual behavior and was used as a slur against those who were deemed homosexual. Due to
shifting attitudes around homosexuality in the United States in the 1990s, the term queer was claimed by sexual minorities
and used as a way to fight homophobia (Brontsema, 2004). This change from out-group negative evaluation to in-group
rallying cry is known as reverse discourse (Jacobs, 2002) and is found commonly in the reclaiming of slurs.
Each slur has its own unique history, and the history of the negatively- and positively-charged uses varies considerably.
The linguistic literature provides an array of terminology for the taking or retaking of lexical and phrasal units: appropriation
(Bucholtz, 1999; Croom, 2011; Jeshion, 2013; Reyes, 2005; Wong, 2005; Wong, 2008), reappropriation (Galinsky et al., 2003;
Wong, 2005, 2008), linguistic reclaiming (Brontsema, 2004), resignification (Brontsema, 2004), subversion (Bianchi, 2014),
inter alia. Appropriation has been used by cultural studies and cultural anthropology to describe a group’s taking of a behavior,
a phrase, a hair style, etc., that does not originally belong to that group. The term appropriation has its origins in Marxist
theory, in which the term was coined to refer to capitalists’ taking ownership of laborers’ work (cf. Hill, 2008). Following the
usage adopted by cultural studies, Bucholtz (1999) discusses appropriation of certain African American Vernacular English
phrases by European American boys in a California high school. The adoption of phrases such as ‘You da man’ is used to
reinforce masculinity and white racial supremacy. Similarly, Reyes (2005) explores the usage of ‘aite’ and ‘na mean’ by Asian
American youth. Like Bucholtz (1999), Reyes (2005) understands appropriation as the ‘taking’ of another group’s cultural or
stylistic resources. In fact, Hill (2008, p. 158) sees appropriation not just as ‘taking’ but rather ‘as a kind of theft’. Thus, linguistic
appropriation involves stealing a term that promotes the power of a dominant group, while further marginalizing the less
powerful group from whom linguistic resources were taken.
The same term appropriation is used by other scholars to describe a somewhat different situation. Especially with refer-
ence to slurs, the taking or appropriation is typically carried out by the group named by the term; that is, a slur that is used

Please cite this article in press as: Beaton, M.E., Washington, H.B., Slurs and the indexical field: the pejoration and reclaiming of
favelado ‘slum-dweller’, Language Sciences (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2014.06.021
4 M.E. Beaton, H.B. Washington / Language Sciences xxx (2014) 1–10

against a particular group can be appropriated by that group. This is the case for slurs such as nigger, queer, gay, and others (cf.
Brontsema, 2004; Croom, 2011; Jeshion, 2013). Wong (2005, 2008) presents a slightly difference scenario with the case of
tongzhi, a word originally used in Communist China to mean ‘comrade’. In Wong’s terminology, gay rights activists in Hong
Kong appropriated the term to refer to sexual minorities, and a Hong Kong newspaper reappropriated the term to mock these
sexual minorities. Accordingly, Wong understands appropriation as the taking of a term previously not associated with the
adoptive community; when the term is taken again by another group, this second appropriation is termed reappropriation.
From the above discussion, it is apparent that the terms appropriation and reappropriation are employed to describe
distinct socially-promulgated changes in the use of certain words and phrases. The pejorative and ameliorated uses of
favelado do not follow the same path as previously studied slurs. We will discuss in later sections how the use of the word
favelado plays out for in-group and out-group situations. In essence, favelado is retaken by fans of the Rio de Janeiro Flamengo
soccer team as a term of in-group solidarity, even though the fans themselves are not necessarily from the favela; this process
is distinct from that of an example like queer, which is taken by the particular sexual minority community against which it had
been used as a slur. In order to avoid clashing with the previously established use of appropriation in other fields of study, and
because the case that we will discuss differs from other documented cases of reappropriation, we opt to employ the termi-
nology of linguistic reclamation or simply reclaiming for the ameliorative use of favelado. By considering the distinct case of
favelado, we add to the existing literature on how pejorized terms are used as slurs and are retaken by certain communities.

3. Data

Our analysis is based on meta-discursive synchronic evidence that includes discussions and definitions of favelado pre-
sented and analyzed for indexical and intertextual meanings. Our data for the n-th order meanings draw on academic and
institutional sources, which use the term favelado to refer to a cross-section of the Brazilian population (e.g., Gondim, 1982;
Movimento de Defesa do Favelado2). The data that comprise the nþ1 order are primarily drawn from online discussion fo-
rums and blogs, where individuals contest the meanings and implications of the word favelado. As discussed below in
Section 6, the reclaiming data are found in webpages relating to a soccer team from Rio de Janeiro. A complete list of sources
can be found in the Appendix.

4. Online discussions problematizing favelado

In a narrow range of contexts, the use of favelado can maintain strict n-th order value. For example, organizations such as
the Movimento de Defesa do Favelado [Movement for the Protection of Slum-dwellers, http://www.mdf.org.br/] use favelado
to refer to the people that they aim to help. In contexts of this sort, only the n-th order meaning is understood since the
institutional nature of the website does not invite the nþ1 meanings found elsewhere (cf. Fig. 2 in Section 5 below).
Since favelado can occur in neutral contexts, its status as a slur is brought into question due to conflict between the n-th
and nþ1 order meanings. In other words, Brazilians debate whether or not the nþ1 indexes automatically arise when a
speaker chooses to use favelado. In example (1) below, an online dictionary discussion forum (www.wordreference.com) on
the appropriate translation of the English term ‘slum-dweller’ in Portuguese incites a debate over whether or not favelado is
equivalent to morador de favela.3

1. sambistapt: ‘Eu li isto na parte de esportes da BBC sobre as olimpíadas em 2016 no Rio. Dizia que 1/5 da
população do Rio era formada de “Slum-dwellers”. Não sei se conclui corretamente, quer dizer Favelado?’
Dom Casmurro: ‘Sim.’
Joca: ‘Mas não seria melhor dizer “morador de favela”? Parece que existe uma diferença sutil entre “favelado” e
“morador de favela”. Nem todo morador de favela é favelado. E também favelado tem uma conotação mais
ampla, não só econômica, significando, por vezes, uma pessoa de gosto cultural duvidoso, mesmo que não seja
necessariamente pobre.
Dom Casmurro: ‘Acho que todo morador de favela é favelado. Há mil outras conotações, mas serão sempre
metáforas com intenções pejorativas, normalmente racistas, que se aplicam a uma grande variedade de situações
- até mesmo aos insultos futebolísticos como este, destinado a provocar a torcida do Flamengo’
sambistapt: ‘I read in the sports part of the BBC about the 2016 Olympics in Rio. It was saying that one fifth of the
population of Rio is made up of “Slum-dwellers”. I don’t know if I understood correctly, does that mean Favelado?’
Dom Casmurro: ‘Yes.’
Joca: ‘But wouldn’t it be better to say “morador de favela”? It seems that there exists a subtle difference between
“favelado” and “morador de favela”. Not every “morador de favela” is a “favelado”. And also favelado has a wider
connotation, not only an economic one, meaning, sometimes, a person of dubious cultural taste, even if he isn’t
necessarily poor.’

2
Movimento de Defesa do Favelado. 2009–present. http://www.mdf.org.br/. [Accessed 25 March 2011].
3
From http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t¼1550077. [Accessed 21 March 2011].

Please cite this article in press as: Beaton, M.E., Washington, H.B., Slurs and the indexical field: the pejoration and reclaiming of
favelado ‘slum-dweller’, Language Sciences (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2014.06.021
 M.E. Beaton, H.B. Washington / Language Sciences xxx (2014) 1–10 5

Dom Casmurro: ‘I think every morador de favela is favelado. There are a thousand other connotations, but there
will always be metaphors with pejorative intentions, normally racist, that are applied to a wide variety of
situations - even to the soccer insults like this one, aimed to provoke the chant of Flamengo fans.’

In this initial discussion, Dom Casmurro establishes the n-th order referential meaning of favelado as simply someone who
lives in a slum. Joca counters Dom Casmurro’s claim by suggesting that morador de favela would be the better translation for
‘slum-dweller’, even though both terms have the same referential value. He argues that morador de favela and favelado cannot
be used interchangeably, cautioning that favelado is ‘loaded’ and ‘not every morador de favela [slum-dweller] is favelado [a
slum-dweller]’. According to Joca, morador de favela and favelado do not encompass identical indexical values because
favelado is used pejoratively and not always for actual slum-dwellers, but rather for uncultured people in general, whether or
not they are from a slum. In fact, he goes so far as to offer one of the nþ1 indexical meanings and dissociates it from the first
order meaning. Dom Casmurro, on the other hand, denies that nþ1 order meanings are important and argues that favelado
has the same meaning as morador de favela, although he admits that ‘metaphors’ (nþ1 order meanings) can be extracted. The
debate in example (1) demonstrates that the meaning of favelado is hotly contested.
The availability of multiple options with the same referential value follows Camp (2013), who argues that a slur’s existence
depends on the availability of more neutral terminology, and the selection of the slur over another option marks the attitudes
and prejudices of the speaker. When a speaker chooses favelado, she indexes negative attitudes toward slum-dwellers. And, in
the process of acquiring second order meanings, the term favelado undergoes pejoration in much the same way as slurs such
as gay, queer, and nigger (cf. McConnell-Ginet, 2002; Camp, 2013; Croom, 2011; Washington, 2010). As Hock (1991, p. 302)
explains, ‘The major motivating force behind [.] pejorations is the contempt in which western and many other societies tend
to hold those who are weaker or less fortunate’. With this in mind, it is unsurprising that the term favelado has taken on
pejorative meanings and is used to describe a person or thing as socially undesirable.

5. nþ1 meanings

The indexical field for favelado, like Eckert’s (2008) field for /t/ release, is built upon socially constructed nþ1 meanings.

Fig. 2. Indexical field for favelado. Lower case ¼ permanent qualities; upper case ¼ social types; dotted line separates positive and negative qualities and social
types. Not all of the meanings are discussed in the text below; see the Appendix for sources for each meaning.

In contrast with Eckert’s (2008) analysis for a phonetic variable, we hold that lexical items with referential value function
primarily to index things in the world rather than the attitude or identity of the speaker, which becomes apparent in the
following example.

2. Captioning a picture in which the ground is not landscaped outside of a mansion, the owner of the photo album
states:
‘O chão tava muito favelado. A construção tava sendo finalizada.’4
‘The ground was very favelado. The construction was still being finalized.’

In example (2), the yard in front of the mansion will presumably be landscaped in the near future, but the index points to the
dirt roads and floors that are permanently fixed in societal conceptions of the favela. The indexical relationship presented in
this example shows an ideological connection between the unfinished ‘dirty’ aspects of the favela and an unfinished, ‘dirty’
place outside of the favela.
Our model keeps Eckert’s (2008) permanent qualities for traits associated with slum-dwellers and their living conditions,
as seen in example (2). Furthermore, Eckert’s category of social types is also included in our analysis of lexical indexicality, and
these types refer to a type of person created in the social imagination of Brazilian Portuguese speakers. The difference

4
From http://www.fotolog.com/annemaniacs/62916800. [Accessed 31 March 2011].

Please cite this article in press as: Beaton, M.E., Washington, H.B., Slurs and the indexical field: the pejoration and reclaiming of
favelado ‘slum-dweller’, Language Sciences (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2014.06.021
6 M.E. Beaton, H.B. Washington / Language Sciences xxx (2014) 1–10

between our use for lexical items and Eckert’s understanding with respect to phonological variants is that the indexical
meaning of the lexical item does not necessarily point to the speaker. Rather, the referent of favelado is determined by the
utterance, and the term points to some characteristic of the favela. In order to account for the differences between phono-
logical/morphosyntactic usages and lexical items, we do not include stance in the indexical field for favelado. This is not to say
that stances are not possible as indexical meanings for lexical items. The recursivity of Silverstein’s model of indexical orders
suggests that stances could potentially emerge from context, as previously mentioned regarding Camp’s (2013) discussion of
the ways in which slur usage signals a speaker’s allegiances and prejudices. Our indexical field aims to capture the qualities
that a speaker sees in another person or thing, either as a permanent quality or a social type. In Eckert’s (2008) model, the
indexical field contains qualities pointing toward the speaker herself. In essence, all three of Eckert’s categories (permanent
qualities, social types, and stances) reflect back on the speaker with the use of /t/ release. In the case of favelado, only stance
refers back to the speaker; here, the permanent qualities and social types reflect meanings associated with the referent.
In the construction of our indexical field, we found that the discourse surrounding the nþ1 order meanings on the internet
shows certain patterns. One tool that participants use to circumscribe the second order meanings of this term is direct (and
sometimes critical) discourse. Example (1) above, which includes discussion of the distinction between favelado and morador
de favela is one such attempt to define (or redefine) the term and its available indexical meanings. Critical discussion of
another nþ1 meaning can be found in a publicity blog written by a Brazilian journalist.5 The writer comments that the entire
cast of the Brazilian soap opera Toma Lá da Cá is white, including the maid, a role that she believes would usually be portrayed
by an actress of African descent. When an episodic character from a favela is introduced on the show, this slum-dwelling
character is black. Furthermore, the episode referenced has a plot-line that reinforces stereotypes of ‘perigo e traficante’
[danger and drug-dealing] within favelas. The journalist criticizes the stereotyped association between race and slum-
dwellers by asking with incredulity, ‘Ainda vivemos num país onde. negro é sinônimo de favelado?’ [‘Do we still live in a
country where. black is synonymous with favelado?’]. The connection between slurs and stereotypes has been explored by
Jeshion (2013), who argues that slurs typically activate stereotypes. Here and in example (1), online participants attempt to
police what the term indexes and how people use it through critical discourses about what society at large connects with the
favela.
Another tool available to negotiate indexical meanings of favelado is the use of adversative clauses in an attempt to block
particular inferences that are licensed by the indexical field.

3. ‘Eu sou favelado, mas não sou traficante!’6

‘I am favelado, but I am not a drug dealer!’
4. ‘Então a gente tem que mostrar que é favelado mas é educado.’7
‘So we have to show that we are favelado but have good manners.’

In the examples presented above, the authors reject the specific invited inferences available through the indexical field. Thus,
the inclusion of the adversative clauses beginning with mas ‘but’ restricts the indexical domain of the term. As Sweetser (1991,
pp. 100–101) points out, the usage of but suggests that ‘the available premises may clash with an apparent necessary
conclusion’, signaling ‘the speaker’s consciousness of presenting two at least partially discordant [concepts] side-by-side’.
Given this use of mas ‘but’, we can conclude that the authors of (3) and (4) believe that their use of favelado will cause the
reader to infer certain negative qualities about the referent. In other words, the adversative conjunction mas is used to deny a
particular nþ1 meaning that the speaker does not want associated with her n-th order usage of favelado. Because of these
expected associations, the employment of adversative clauses is widespread by those who use favelado intending an n-th
order interpretation. In essence, by denying a particular second order meaning, the speaker affirms that she is using the n-th
order meaning (‘slum-dweller’), thus rejecting the nþ1 indexical values of the term.
Another way that people talk about favelado and its indexical meanings is through popular culture associated with favelas.
One such example involves funk carioca, a genre of dance music with roots in rap music that features heavy bass, fast meter,
and explicit lyrics. Because this style of music originates in the favelas of Rio, it is strongly associated with favela culture
(Vianna, 1990; Medeiros, 2006). Judgments about the music and the provocative style of dance associated with it have
provided opportunities for the development and reinforcement of nþ1 indexicals. In a publicly available video online,8 two
teenage girls record themselves dancing funk. The video’s title (‘beleza da favela dançando funk’ [‘beauties from the favela
dancing funk’]) makes apparent the girls’ origin. However, three commenters use ‘faveladas’ (favelado with plural feminine
morphology) to describe them, invoking pejorative nþ1 meanings. The girls are described as putas ‘sluts’ and prostitutas
‘prostitutes’, and many commenters describe sexual acts that they wish to perform with the girls in explicit detail. Videos and
comments of this sort abound in the discourse surrounding funk, women, and the favela. In fact, an entire genre of
pornography has exploited favelada for its indexical meaning as a promiscuous woman who presents herself in a certain way
to arouse male desire.9 Consumers of pornography can search for the term favelada to find not only women dancing in this

5
From http://depoisdos25masantesdos40.blogspot.com/2009/09/negro-e-sinonimo-de-favelado.html. [Accessed 24 March 2011].
6
From http://www.osabetudo.com/ei-voce-para-com-isso-de-me-julgar-sem-me-conhecer/. [Accessed 25 March 2011].
7
From “Assessoria Educacional às Creches Comunitárias do Municipio de Niterói: Possibilidades e Limites”, available through Google Docs.
8
From http://www.youtube.com/watch?v¼mdEjiU_RBn8. [Accessed 21 March 2011].
9
For example, http://www.tubeporno.com.br/bundas/favelada-rabuda-dancando-hip-hop/. [Accessed 18 January 2013].

Please cite this article in press as: Beaton, M.E., Washington, H.B., Slurs and the indexical field: the pejoration and reclaiming of
favelado ‘slum-dweller’, Language Sciences (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2014.06.021
 M.E. Beaton, H.B. Washington / Language Sciences xxx (2014) 1–10 7

provocative way, but also a ‘certain kind of woman’ (i.e., a ‘slut from the favela’). The connection between the favela and these
women suggests the ease of access between n-th and nþ1 order meanings associated with favelado.
Up to this point, we have considered the cases of the negotiation of meaning of the negative ideologies for favelado. Fig. 2
shows these indexical values along with positive indexical meanings obtained through sidestepping. As Eckert (2008, p. 464)
indicates, ‘the emergence of an nþ1st indexical value is the result of an ideological move, a sidestepping within an ideological
field’. Sidestepping from one social meaning to another can occur as ideological movement between any of the meanings in
the field and even across the dotted line, which represents change from slur to reclaimed meanings. The reclaimed meanings
to the right of this line are available only through the Flamengo soccer context to be discussed in Section 6 below.

6. Amelioration & reclaiming

In this section, we consider the amelioration of favelado. Most of the second order meanings presented in the indexical
field in Fig. 2 are negatively valenced due to societal ideologies surrounding this marginalized population. Ameliorated in-
dexicals are limited to the very specific context of the Rio de Janeiro soccer team Flamengo. In this context, fans of opposing
teams use favelado as an insult against the Flamengo soccer players and their fans. Instead of rejecting the insult and directly
denying that they are favelados, the fans have incorporated the slur into a ritualized chant (‘Favela! Favela! Favela! Silêncio na
favela!’) that exalts their players as favelados indeed. As one fan explains10:

5. ‘Não moro na favela.mais [sic] torço por um time CHAMADO

FLAMENGO.
E esse time não é favelado.e se for, qual o preconceito?
E se ser FLAMENGO é ser FAVELADO, eu sou então.’
‘I don’t live in the favela.but I cheer for a team CALLED FLAMENGO.
And this team isn’t favelado. and if it was, then why the prejudice?
And if being FLAMENGO is being FAVELADO, then that’s what I am.’
Even in this context where the fan is willing to call himself favelado if his team is referred to by this term, he adamantly denies
that the team is favelado (‘E esse time não é favelado’ [And this team isn’t favelado]), by which he may be saying that the
members of the team are not from the favela (n-th order); alternatively, he may be denying the invited inferences available in
the second (nþ1) order. The discourse that leads this fan to openly mark himself as favelado derives from the use of the term
as an insult (nþ1 order meanings) and the reclaiming of the term by fans through the chant.
Taking a negative term and recycling it with positive valence for solidarity is common with lexical items used against
marginalized groups. In contrast to the case of favelado, other documented cases involve reclaiming the term by the group
that the term names. For example, McConnell-Ginet (2002) describes how the pejorative term queer has been reclaimed by
the homosexual community. She explains that ‘by publicly and assertively using the term in self-reference, queer activists
were explicitly challenging the contempt and the attempts to control them that had fueled others’ use of queer as a term of
abuse’ (McConnell-Ginet, 2002, p. 153). Similarly, Washington (2010) considers the perception of the use of the term nigger
and finds that the reclaimed form used by in-group members is perceived as positive. In this case, the reclaimed form is co-
indexed with phonological differences in form (i.e., elision of the final rhotic) and is thus differentiated from the form used by
outsiders, which Croom (2013) explains as a process correlated to the shared in-group features (i.e., race, phonological
variables) reflecting speaker perspective. In general, the reclaiming of terms like queer and nigger by the communities against
which they are originally used marks a counter-ideology or counter-culture, causing semantic amelioration and semantic
inversion under specific conditions. While some activists and scholars believe that reclaiming slurs can result in positive
changes for the marginalized community (cf. Brontsema, 2004), Jane Hill (2008) sees even ameliorative uses of racist slurs as
potentially problematic for society in that terms that are ameliorated receive wide circulation and thus become available for
re-derogation.
The Flamengo fans and players represent a wide variety of social backgrounds; some may live in a favela, but this is not
unique to this team. When the Flamengo fans hear fans of an opposing team hurling insults at their beloved soccer players,
they respond by aligning themselves with the insult. By making the connection between themselves, the players, and the
slur, they foster an in-group identity alongside slum-dwellers. Former treatments of appropriation and reappropriation
exclusively involve terms either taken by outside groups and/or retaken by the stigmatized group that the term describes. In
the soccer game context, fans and players of both the Flamengo team and its opponents may include slum-dwellers. Thus,
the retaking of the term by the Flamengo fans suggests a temporary alignment with the slum-dwellers themselves or with
perceived characteristics of the slum-dwellers, whether or not those in attendance in fact belong to this group. In this case,
the fans reclaim the insult that is used against them, temporarily assuming an identity that may not authentically be theirs.
This distinction between past usages of the term (re)appropriation and our use of linguistic reclamation is important, since
slum-dwellers themselves are not necessarily the group retaking favelado. The competitive soccer context does, however,
provide a place for re-evaluation of some of the negative qualities in the indexical field, creating the conditions necessary
for sidestepping, and eventually valence change, within the indexical field. We hypothesize that the sidestepping that

10
From http://www.blablagol.com.br/ser-flamengo-4718. [Accessed 25 March 2011].

Please cite this article in press as: Beaton, M.E., Washington, H.B., Slurs and the indexical field: the pejoration and reclaiming of
favelado ‘slum-dweller’, Language Sciences (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2014.06.021
8 M.E. Beaton, H.B. Washington / Language Sciences xxx (2014) 1–10

results in valence change is possible for other lexical items. This problematizes the various kinds of linguistic (re)taking
discussed above: what is the relationship between (re)taking and semantic inversion (valence-changing from negative to
positive)?
Valence change of lexical items involves building on meanings and repackaging them, whether the move is from negative
to positive or vice versa. In his studies of the Cantonese term tongzhi, glossed as ‘comrade’ in the context of Communist China
but retaken by the gay community to refer to the queer Chinese population, Wong (2008, p. 446) writes that the term is not
imported ‘wholesale’ from revolutionary discourse. In other words, not all of the indexical values associated with the
communist term apply to gay community. The news media then lashed out against the gay community by using tongzhi with
the negative indexical meanings left available from its totalitarian roots. When marginalized groups retake a slur, they are
rarely entirely successful at ameliorating the term, both because of their social position and because of the loaded negative
indexes associated with the term’s history (cf. Wong, 2005; Wong, 2008; McConnell-Ginet, 2002). We find this incomplete
amelioration with favelado. The positively-valenced terms on the right-hand side of the indexical field in Fig. 2 do not import
all of the other nþ1 meanings but rather take some of the negative nþ1 meanings and repackage them as positive features.
Because of the wide-ranging negative indexes associated with the slur, the ameliorated meaning is only available in very
specific contexts and is created out of and dependent upon the negative meanings.
Shifts between negative and positive qualities in the indexical field can lead to semantic change caused by social factors.
Ullmann (1979, p. 232) notes that pejoration is common as the result of ‘prejudice against groups, specifically social classes
and occupations’. In the case of favelado, the n-th order usage underwent pejoration due to prejudice against underprivileged
neighborhoods. Traugott (1989, p. 34) provides a similar example, citing boor in English with the original referential meaning
of ‘farmer’, which later came to designate a crude or stupid person. Over time, the n-th order meaning of ‘farmer’ was lost in
favor of the nþ1 meanings (‘crude’ and ‘stupid’), thus undergoing the process of pejoration. The prejudice that created the
pejorative, negatively-valenced nþ1 meanings of favelado is utilized by fans of teams opposing Flamengo in soccer games.
Hock and Joseph (2009, p. 232) explain that ‘sometimes we can see both pejoration and melioration [sic] in succession, as
social factors cause words to change from one sphere to the other’. The jeers against Flamengo players and their fans thus
provide them with reworkable material. Furthermore, Hock and Joseph (2009) demonstrate that ‘words designating warriors
[.] tend to acquire positive connotations’. Fans are able to arrive at the warrior meaning via two separate but related
processes that link favelado to its positive connotations. The first process equates favelado with someone who has to fight for a
better life, to become a warrior (cf. Fig. 2).

6. ‘Ser favelado é ser diferente, é ser guerreiro para ser aluno, é ser guerreiro para ser trabalhador de carteira
assinada, é ser guerreiro para ter direitos, é ser guerreiro para ser “igual”.’11
‘To be favelado is to be different, it is being a warrior in order to be a student, it is being a warrior to be a salaried
worker, it is being a warrior in order to have rights, it is being a warrior in order to be “equal”.’
In this example, we find the ideology whereby slum-dwellers have to fight for both material resources and legitimation. The
second process presents athletes as modern day warriors who fight a ‘battle’ on the field. Thus, Flamengo fans can arrive at the
concept of their players as ‘warriors’ through both processes due to the employment of the term favelado.
The dotted line in the indexical field (Fig. 2) divides the context-specific positively-valenced soccer game indexicals from
the other nþ1 meanings that have negative value. Flamengo fans and players are placed across the dotted line because they
are associated with the negative indexicals of favelado by the out-group members and the positive indexicals by the in-group
that has reclaimed the slur. The in-group has agency to make the step in the indexical field and to make indexicals (such as
violent) into positive traits like badass and street-smart that describe the acumen of their team. This soccer situation exem-
plifies the amelioration possibilities of the term, which could spread to other competitive enterprises and beyond.

7. Conclusion

This paper provides a first look at content-ful lexical items using Eckert’s (2008) indexical field. While Eckert’s model
presents a useful foundation for understanding the relationship between multiple indexical meanings, consideration of
lexical items requires a reworking of this model. Phonological variables do not have referential content in the n-th order, i.e.,
/t/ release is simply an optional articulation and does not contain semantic information. In contrast, lexical items contain
semantic content in the n-th order, i.e., favelado is a person living in a marginal neighborhood. When using a lexical item of
this sort, a speaker is not restricted to indexing something about herself, as is the case with phonological variables. Mor-
phosyntactic variables are more similar to lexical items in their indexicality in that they can also index social relationships
(e.g., T/V forms discussed in Sinnott, 2013). With lexical items and, to a lesser extent, morphosyntactic variables, a speaker can
choose the referent in a way that she cannot for phonological variables. In other words, only lexical items and especially slurs
reference a ‘target’ (cf. Croom, 2014) in a way phonological variables do not.
The Flamengo soccer context offers an example of valence change in the reclamation of the term. In the case of favelado,
fans of competing teams insult Flamengo fans by calling them favelados, pointing to the negatively-valenced majority of the
indexical field. Referencing the negative meanings on the left side of the field, the Flamengo fans then reclaim the insult and

11
From http://www.ucam.edu.br/pesquisa/revistafdcm/Ucam14.pdf#page¼101. [Accessed 21 March 2011].

Please cite this article in press as: Beaton, M.E., Washington, H.B., Slurs and the indexical field: the pejoration and reclaiming of
favelado ‘slum-dweller’, Language Sciences (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2014.06.021
 M.E. Beaton, H.B. Washington / Language Sciences xxx (2014) 1–10 9

alter its meaning, creating the positively-valenced meanings shown on the right side of the dotted line in Fig. 2. Unlike other
content-ful expressions like fag, queer, or tongzhi, the retaking of favelado is not by the slum-dwellers themselves. Here, the
linguistic reclaiming is by another group against which the slur has been used. This contrasts with previously studied
pejorized lexical items for which societal ideological views of the marginalized group lend themselves to the creation of the
negative nþ1 meanings, and the marginalized group in question reclaims the slur for in-group solidarity. The Flamengo fans
do not serve directly as the ‘target’ of the slur because they are not necessarily from the favela; in this sense, although the slur
is directed at them, they are ‘witnesses’ of the marginalization of slum-dwellers (cf. Croom, 2014). Accordingly, they are
aligning themselves with an in-group rather than actually being part of the in-group.
This study of the indexicality of the content-ful lexical item favelado can further contribute to notions of syntactic and
semantic change and grammaticalization. In the development of second order (nþ1) meanings, the first (n-th) order noun
takes on characteristics associated with such a person and is frequently used as an adjective. Furthermore, fixed adverbial
expressions such as falar favelado (‘to talk favelado’), which have become commonplace in Rio de Janeiro, show further ev-
idence of semantic and pragmatic extension, which are commonly found in grammaticalization processes. Similar situations
are prevalent with other pejorized lexical items. For example, it is possible for an object or person to be described as ghetto or
gay (i.e., an adjectival usage) and for a person to talk or look ghetto or gay (i.e., an adverbial usage).
It is often the case that amelioration via reclaiming (negative > positive shift) by a stigmatized group allows that group to
gain covert prestige, and this positive valence can be used by other groups, as in the use of ghetto by young suburban
American teenagers. Because slum-dwellers have not yet taken favelado for themselves, covert prestige for the use of the term
is not available to slum-dwellers or groups outside of the soccer context. The model developed in this paper for favelado, a
term that can be used as both a slur and an in-group term of solidarity, provides a framework for describing the different
indexical meanings and social access to them.

Acknowledgments

We greatly appreciate the generous feedback on various prior drafts provided by Scott Schwenter, Anna Babel, Emilia
Alonso Sameño, and Kathryn Campbell-Kibler, as well as that of three anonymous reviewers. Thanks also to the thoughtful
audiences of the NWAV 41 conference in Bloomington, IN and the Institute of the Empirical Study of Language at Ohio
University in Athens, OH. Any remaining shortcomings are strictly our own.

Appendix. Sources for the Indexical Field (Fig. 2)

BADASS, VIOLENT – ‘caralho, tu é muito favelado meu, te mata sério’ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v¼kr0H_77FLNE

[Accessed 24 March 2011]
DIRTY – ‘Tem muito favelado que é pobre mas é limpinho’ http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.db.postgresql.brasil/
14865 [Accessed 21 March 2011]
DISHONEST – ‘infelizmente ainda é assim mesmo e como a Mitti tambem nasci em favela e meu marido em morro e daí?
somos pessoas de bem e honestas’ http://www.blogger.com/profile/05999171014910833337 [Accessed 21 March 2011]
NORDESTINO ‘northeasterner’ (stigmatized region of Brazil) – ‘não existem só negros em favelas, existem nordestinos
de montão tb.’ http://depoisdos25masantesdos40.blogspot.com/2009/09/negro-e-sinonimo-de-favelado.html [Accessed
24 March 2011]
POOR, BLACK – ‘A descrição do marginal é favelado, pobre, preto!’ http://rapgenius.com/Mv-bill-traficando-informacao-
lyrics#lyric [Accessed 22 March 2011]
POOR, INELEGANT, IMPOLITE – ‘Em outros termos, “favelado” é tudo aquilo que rejeitamos pela falta de prosperidade, de
elegância, de ordem, de beleza ou de polidez, entre outros aspectos, no qual são ressaltadasas ausências. Em síntese,
podemos dizer que o uso dessa palavra indica, antes de mais .’ http://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?
codigo¼3166013 [Accessed 21 March 2011]
REDNECK – ‘Comércio internacional, contrabando, lavagem de dinheiro, não é coisa que um favelado saiba lidar. O
favelado é um caipira da cidade grande.’ http://brazil.indymedia.org/content/2010/06/473460.comments.shtml [Accessed
21 March 2011]
SLUT, UGLY – ‘FAVELADAS? Será? será? auhUE’
‘Nem comento mais nadz! FEIA PA CARAI!’
‘caraio favelada.’
‘Feia pra caraio!’
‘burraa!’
‘namoral favelado é burro pra caraio!!!!’
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v¼mdEjiU_RBn8
http://www.tubeporno.com.br/bundas/favelada-rabuda-dancando-hip-hop/
[Accessed 18 January 2013]
TRAFICANTE ‘drug dealer’ – ‘Eu sou favelado, mas não sou traficante!’ http://www.osabetudo.com/ei-voce-para-com-
isso-de-me-julgar-sem-me-conhecer/ [Accessed 24 March 2011]

Please cite this article in press as: Beaton, M.E., Washington, H.B., Slurs and the indexical field: the pejoration and reclaiming of
favelado ‘slum-dweller’, Language Sciences (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2014.06.021
10 M.E. Beaton, H.B. Washington / Language Sciences xxx (2014) 1–10

UNFINISHED, DIRTY – ‘O chão tava muito favelado. A construção tava sendo finalizada.’ http://www.fotolog.com/
annemaniacs/62916800 [Accessed 31 March 2011]
UNCULTURED – “significando, por vezes, uma pessoa de gosto cultural duvidoso, mesmo que não seja necessariamente
pobre.” http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t¼1550077 [Accessed 21 March 2011]
WARRIOR, FIGHTER – ‘Ser favelado é ser diferente, é ser guerreiro para ser aluno, é ser guerreiro para ser trabalhador de
carteira assinada, é ser guerreiro para ter direitos, é ser guerreiro para ser “igual”. Mas ser favelado é ser diferente porque é
favelado’ http://www.ucam.edu.br/pesquisa/revistafdcm/Ucam14.pdf [Accessed 21 March 2011]

References

Bianchi, C., 2014. Slurs and appropriation: an echoic account. J. Pragmat. 66, 35–44.
Brontsema, R., 2004. A queer revolution: reconceptualizing the debate over linguistic reclamation. Colo. Res. Linguist. 17, 1–17.
Bucholtz, M., 1999. You da man: narrating the racial other in the production of white masculinity. J. Socioling. 3, 443–460.
Camp, E., 2013. Slurring perspectives. Anal. Philos. 54, 330–349.
Croom, A.M., 2011. Slurs. Lang. Sci. 33, 343–358.
Croom, A.M., 2013. How to do things with slurs: studies in the way of derogatory words. Lang. Commun. 33, 177–204.
Croom, A.M., 2014. The semantics of slurs: a refutation of pure expressivism. Lang. Sci. 41, 227–242.
Eckert, P., 2008. Variation and the indexical field. J. Socioling. 12, 453–476.
Galinsky, A., Hugenberg, K., Groom, C., Bodenhausen, G., 2003. The reappropriations of stigmatizing labels: implications for social identity. In: Identity
Issues in Groups,. Research on Managing Groups and Teams, vol. 5, pp. 221–256.
Gondim, L.M., 1982. A Manipulação do Estigma de Favelado na Política Habitacional do Rio de Janeiro. Rev. Ciênc. Sociais 12–13, 27–44.
Guy, G.R., 1981. Linguistic Variation in Brazilian Portuguese: Aspects of the Phonology, Syntax and Language History (Ph.D. diss.). University of Pennsylvania.
Guy, G.R., Zilles, A.M.S., 2008. Endangered language varieties: vernacular speech and linguistic standardization in Brazilian Portuguese. In: King, K.A.,
Schilling-Estes, N., Fogle, L., Lou, J.J., Soukup, B. (Eds.), Sustaining Linguistic Diversity: Endangered and Minority Languages and Language Varieties.
Georgetown University Press, Washington, D.C., pp. 53–66.
Hill, J., 2008. The Everyday Language of White Racism. Wiley-Blackwell, Malden, MA.
Hock, H.H., 1991. Principles of Historical Linguistics, second ed. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.
Hock, H.H., Joseph, B.D., 2009. Language History, Language Change, and Language Relationship, second ed. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.
Jacobs, A.T., 2002. Appropriating a slur: looping in the African American usage of nigga. M/C J. – J. Media Cult. 5 (4). http://www.media-culture.org.au/mc/
0208/semantic.php (31 May 2014).
Jeshion, R., 2013. Expressivism and the offensiveness of slurs. Philos. Perspect. 27, 231–259.
Johnstone, B., Andrus, J., Danielson, A.E., 2006. Mobility, indexicality, and the enregisterment of “Pittsburghese”. J. Engl. Linguist. 34, 77–104.
McConnell-Ginet, S., 2002. ‘Queering’ semantics: definitional struggles. In: Campbell-Kibler, K., Podesva, R.J., Roberts, S.J., Wong, A. (Eds.), Language and
Sexuality: Contesting Meaning in Theory and Practice. CSLI Publications, Stanford, pp. 137–160.
Medeiros, J., 2006. Funk carioca: crime ou cultura? O som dá medo. E prazer. Editoras Albatroz, Loqüi e Terceiro Nome, São Paulo.
Reyes, A., 2005. Appropriation of African American slang by Asian American youth. J. Socioling. 9, 509–532.
Scherre, M.M.P., Naro, A.J., 1991. Marking in discourse: ‘birds of a feather’. Lang. Var. Chang. 3, 23–32.
Scherre, M.M.P., Naro, A.J., 1992. The serial effect on internal and external variables. Lang. Var. Chang. 4, 1–13.
Silverstein, M., 1976. Shifters, linguistic categories, and cultural description. In: Basso, K., Selby, H. (Eds.), Meaning in Anthropology. University of New
Mexico Press, Albuquerque, pp. 11–55.
Silverstein, M., 2003. Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life. Lang. Commun. 23, 193–229.
Sinnott, S., 2013. Generalized conversational implicatures and indexical fields: the case of address forms. In: Carvalho, A.M., Beaudrie, S. (Eds.), Selected
Proceedings from the 2012 Workshop on Spanish Sociolinguistics. Cascadilla Proceedings Project, Somerville, MA, pp. 53–62.
Sweetser, E.E., 1991. From Etymologoy to Pragmatics. University Press, Cambridge.
Traugott, E.C., 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: an example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 65, 31–55.
Ullmann, S., 1979. Semantics: an Introduction to the Science of Meaning. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Vianna, H., 1990. Funk e Cultura Popular Carioca. Rev. Estud. Hist. 3, 244–253.
Washington, A., 2010. Bad Words Gone Good: Semantic Reanalysis in African American English (Ms., Master’s thesis). University of Pittsburgh.
Wong, A.D., 2005. The reappropriation of Tongzhi. Lang. Soc. 34, 763–793.
Wong, A.D., 2008. On the actuation of semantic change: the case of Tongzhi. Lang. Sci. 30, 423–449.

Please cite this article in press as: Beaton, M.E., Washington, H.B., Slurs and the indexical field: the pejoration and reclaiming of
favelado ‘slum-dweller’, Language Sciences (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2014.06.021