Language Aggression in English Slang: The Case of the -<span class='italic'>o</span> Suffix

doi:10.1017/9781108991841.003

2 - Language Aggression in English Slang: The Case of the -o Suffix

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 30 June 2022

Elisa Mattiello

Edited by

Natalia Knoblock

Show author details

Natalia Knoblock: Affiliation:
Saginaw Valley State University, Michigan

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Slang is generally considered an unconventional vocabulary characterized by connotations of novelty, informality, and even derogatoriness or offensiveness. As such, it can be used as means of social exclusion and verbal aggression. The derogatory character of slang is particularly evident in its innovatory lexicon, as well as in the metaphorical extensions of its vocabulary. This study adopts a morphopragmatic approach to analyse slang words. In particular, it focuses on the usage of the suffix -o in offensive and aggressive contexts with nefarious intent, as in the words sicko, lesbo, or commo. The study is both dictionary-driven and corpus-based. Data selected from Green’s Dictionary of Slang have been collected in order to investigate how the -o suffix is utilized in hate communication to denigrate, dehumanize, and marginalize groups or individuals. Contextualized examples from COCA are analysed from the quantitative and qualitative viewpoints with the aims to: 1) identify the genres and environments where the -o suffix finds its preferred application, 2) investigate the most common collocational patterns where slang -o words convey a pragmatic meaning [aggressive], and 3) show the specific connotational meanings/pragmatic effects contributed by the -o suffix.

Keywords

slang -o suffix verbal aggression morphopragmatics connotational meaning

Type: Chapter
Information: The Grammar of Hate
Morphosyntactic Features of Hateful, Aggressive, and Dehumanizing Discourse
, pp. 34 - 58

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108991841.003 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allen, I. L. (1998). Slang: Sociology. In Mey, J. L. and Asher, R. E. (eds.), Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 878–883.Google Scholar

Andersson, L. G., and Trudgill, P. (1990). Bad Language. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Appah, C. K. I., and Amfo, N. A. A. (2011). The morphopragmatics of the diminutive morpheme (-ba/-wa) in Akan. Lexis [Online], 6, 85–103. Available at http://journals.openedition.org/lexis/437. DOI: 10.4000/lexis.437.Google Scholar

Bazzanella, C., Caffi, C., and Sbisà, M. (1991). Scalar dimensions in illocutionary force. In Zagar, I. Z. (ed.), Speech Acts: Fiction or Reality? Ljubljana: Institute for Social Sciences, pp. 63–76.Google Scholar

Caffi, C. (2001). La mitigazione: Un approccio pragmatico alla comunicazione nei contesti terapeutici. Munster: Lit.Google Scholar

Cantero, M. (2003). La morfopragmática del español. München: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar

Crocco Galéas, G. (1992). Gli etnici italiani: Studio di morfologia naturale. Padova: Unipress.Google Scholar

Davies, M. (2008–). Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA). Available at https://corpus.byu.edu/coca/Google Scholar

Dressler, W. U., and Kiefer, F. (1990). Austro-Hungarian morphopragmatics. In Dressler, W. U. et al. (eds.), Contemporary Morphology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 69–77.CrossRef Google Scholar

Dressler, W. U., and Kilani-Schoch, M. (1994). Morphopragmatique interactionnelle: Les formations en -o du français branché. In Tonelli, L. and Dressler, W. U. (eds.), Natural Morphology: Perspectives for the Nineties. Padua: Unipress, pp. 31–52.Google Scholar

Dressler, W. U., and Merlini Barbaresi, L. (1986). How to fix interfixes? Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 36, 53–68.Google Scholar

Dressler, W. U., and Merlini Barbaresi, L. (1987). Elements of morphopragmatics. In Verschueren, J. (ed.), Levels of Linguistic Adaptation. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 33–51.Google Scholar

Dressler, W. U., and Merlini Barbaresi, L. (1994). Morphopragmatics: Diminutives and Intensifiers in Italian, German, and Other Languages. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Dumas, B. K., and Lighter, J. (1978). Is slang a word for linguistics? American Speech, 53, 5–17.Google Scholar

Eble, C. (1996). Slang and Sociability: In-Group Language among College Students. Chapel Hill/London: The University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar

Erjavec, K., and Kovačič, M. P. (2012). ‘You don’t understand, this is a new war!’ Analysis of hate speech in news web sites’ comments. Mass Communication and Society, 15(6), 899–920.Google Scholar

Green, J. (2020). Green’s Dictionary of Slang. Available at https://greensdictofslang.com/Google Scholar

Hamans, C. (2020). How an ‘Italian’ suffix became productive in Germanic languages. In Ten Hacken, P. and Panokova, R. (ed.), The Interaction of Borrowing and Word Formation. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 140–161.Google Scholar

Hamilton, M. A. (2012). Verbal aggression: Understanding the psychological antecedents and social consequences. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 31(1), 5–12.Google Scholar

Hill, J. H. (1995). Mock Spanish: A site for the indexical reproduction of racism in American English. Language and Culture: Symposium 2. Available at https://language-culture.binghamton.edu/symposia/2/part1/Google Scholar

Huddleston, R., and Pullum, G. K (2002). The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Infante, D. A., Rancer, A. S., and Wigley, C. J. (2011). In defense of the argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness scales. Communication Quarterly, 59, 145–154.Google Scholar

Kádár, D. Z., Parvaresh, V., and Ning, P. (2019). Morality, moral order, and language conflict and aggression: A position paper. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict, 7(1), 6–31.Google Scholar

Kilani-Schoch, M., and Dressler, W. U. (1992). Prol-o, intell-o, gauch-o et les autres: Propriétés formelles de deux opérations du français parlé. Romanistisches Jahrbuch, 43, 65–86.Google Scholar

Knoblock, N. (2017). Xenophobic Trumpeters: A corpus-assisted discourse study of Donald Trump’s Facebook conversations. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict, 5(2), 295–322.Google Scholar

Mattiello, E. (2008). An Introduction to English Slang: A Description of Its Morphology, Semantics and Sociology. Monza: Polimetrica.Google Scholar

Mattiello, E. (2013). Extra-Grammatical Morphology in English: Abbreviations, Blends, Reduplicatives, and Related Phenomena. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

Merlini Barbaresi, L. (1997). Modification of speech acts: Aggravation and mitigation. In Caron, B. (ed.), Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Linguists. Electronic Edition, Oxford: Elsevier, paper n. 0353.Google Scholar

Merlini Barbaresi, L. (2001). The pragmatics of the ‘diminutive’ -y/ie suffix in English. In Schaner-Wolles, C., Rennison, J., and Neubarth, F. (eds.), Naturally! Torino: Rosenberg and Sellier, pp. 315–326.Google Scholar

Merlini Barbaresi, L. (2006). Morphopragmatics. In Brown, K. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Second Edition, Volume 8. Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 332–335.Google Scholar

Merlini Barbaresi, L., and Dressler, W. U. (2020). Pragmatic explanations in morphology. In Pirrelli, V., Plag, I., and Dressler, W. U. (eds.), Word Knowledge and Word Usage: A Cross-disciplinary Guide to the Mental Lexicon. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 405–451.CrossRef Google Scholar

Miró-Llinares, F., Moneva, A., and Esteve, M. (2018). Hate is in the air! But where? Introducing an algorithm to detect hate speech in digital microenvironments. Crime Science, 7(1), 1–12.Google Scholar

Munro, P. (ed.) (2001). U.C.L.A. Slang 4. Los Angeles: Department of Linguistics, University of California.Google Scholar

Oksanen, A., Hawdon, J., Holkeri, E., Näsi, M., and Räsänen, P. (2014). Exposure to online hate among young social media users. In Warehime, M. N. (ed.), Soul of Society: A Focus on the Lives of Children and Youth. Bingley: Emerald, pp. 253–273.Google Scholar

Sornig, K. (1981). Lexical Innovation: A Study of Slang, Colloquialisms and Casual Speech. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Stenström, A.-B. (2000). From slang to slanguage: A description based on teenage talk. In Kis, T. (ed.), Mi a szleng? Debrecen: Kossuth Lajos University Press, pp. 89–108.Google Scholar

Stenström, A-B., Andersen, G., and Hasund, I. K. (2002). Trends in Teenage Talk: Corpus Compilation, Analysis and Findings. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Zhang, Z., Robinson, D., and Tepper, J. (2018). Detecting hate speech on twitter using a convolution-LSTM based deep neural network. In Gangemi, A., Navigli, R., Vidal, M. E., Hitzler, P., Troncy, R., Hollink, L., Tordai, A., and Alam, M. (eds.), The Semantic Web, ESWC 2018, 3–7 June 2018, Heraklion, Greece. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 10843. Springer Verlag, pp. 745–760. Available at https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93417-4_48 Google Scholar

Book contents

2 - Language Aggression in English Slang: The Case of the -o Suffix

Summary

Keywords

Access options

References

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive