Communications in Humanities Research
- The Open Access Proceedings Series for Conferences
Vol. 6, 14 September 2023
* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
In modern China, there has been a notable shift in the usage of 'X dog', disparaging words involving the word "dog" with a noun, resulting in a progressive diminution of its negative impact. Using Lynne Tirrell's theory of derogatory terms, this paper employs a combination of literature review and corpus analysis to explore the ways in which the essentialism condition has contributed to the historical prevalence of 'X dog' as a widely used derogatory term in ancient China, and how its shifting perception has impacted its usage in the modern era. This study gives vital insights into the intricacies of linguistic and social practices in Chinese society by exposing the deep relationships between disparaging terminology and the essentialism condition. In addition, the paper discusses potential disagreements and differing perspectives regarding the usage of pejorative terminology, providing nuanced explanations and perspectives on this contentious matter. Overall, this research presents a nuanced examination of the manner in which 'X dog' and other pejorative labels are created by historical, cultural, and linguistic factors, and highlights the need for more investigation into the intricate dynamics of language use in modern China.
derogatory term, dog, sociolinguistics, pragmatics
1. Tirrell, Lynne (2012). Genocidal Language Games. In Ishani Maitra & Mary Kate McGowan (eds.), Speech and Harm: Controversies Over Free Speech. Oxford University Press. pp. 174--221.
2. Fugen Liu.(2007). A brief history of abusive words in ancient Chinese:[D].Zhejiang: Zhejiang University, 20-25.
3. Shuai Hong.(2015). “xx dog” without derogation. Language Planning(25),65-66.
4. Wengao Sun.(2016). An analysis of “X dog” buzzwords from the perspective of cognitive linguistics. Language Planning(17),87-88.
5. Qingping Liu.(2020). Let the distinction between man and beast cease. Journal of Hubei University ( Philosophy and Social Science) (03),55-61+173.
6. Henry Stephens Salt.(1892). Animals' Rights: Considered in Relation to Social Progress. London: George Bell & Sons.
7. Peter Singer.(1975). Animal Liberation. NewYork: HarperCollins,3, 6-12.
8. Xiaoxing Huang & Jianjun Li.(2011). Ethical justification of the moral status of animals. Journal of Dialectics of Nature(06),27-32+126.
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study will be available from the authors upon reasonable request.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Authors who publish this series agree to the following terms:
1. Authors retain copyright and grant the series right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this series.
2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the series's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this series.
3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See Open Access Instruction).