Sat 14 Apr 2007
Chinese Niggaz
Posted by jangari under Linguistics
[3] Comments
Mark Liberman has a post on the use of the word ‘nigger’ to describe shades of colours, most frequently brown. Obviously the term has ceased to be used on account of its clear offensiveness, but pervades in Chinese use of English.
It reminded me of the case of the mandarin ‘um’. Since learning (from Laurie – whose blog, it appears, is for all intents and purposes dead) that the mandarin word for ‘um’ is /nəgə/, I’ve been hearing it everywhere, especially in Chinatown and on the bus from uni in the evening.
It isn’t uncommon, when you’re attending to it at least, to hear someone begin their sentence with what sounds like “Nigger, nigger, nigger…”
[Is there a term in the linguistic nomenclature for this sort of thing, one that perhaps ends in -ive? If not, can I propose hesitative?]
<update>
Having just had a brief chat with my maliyi, who is looking at conversational analysis, I’ve realised that hesitative is not a good label for this sort of thing. While hesitation is often a part of the function of these sorts of words, um, ah and so on, they are more saliently turn-holders in a conversation, so that you don’t get interrupted while trying to think of the right words to employ. So, it is okay to speak of their function as hesitative (where it is in fact hesitative), this kind of thing shouldn’t always be referred to a hesitative.
</update>
April 14th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Hmm. Interesting, and also disturbing. It’s funny how even reading about taboo words can still be jarring, even with the knowledge that they are being discussed as taboo words.
[Is there a term in the linguistic nomenclature for this sort of thing, one that perhaps ends in -ive? If not, can I propose hesitative?]
Um…do you mean a filled pause? Though I like your propoal of the hesitative for this type. I’ve seen “hesitative noises”. But hestitatives would make a good class of words.
April 14th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
Oops, my italics got all messed up in that comment. They should’ve ended after the right square bracket…
April 14th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Yeah, Alejna, it seems to be a characteristic of North American culture that meta-discussion of taboo terms is itself considered taboo. There in fact seems to be a recursion of taboo-ness, such that words describing sets of taboo words are similarly considered taboo and duly euphemised. I’m thinking of the word swear which (this is probably anachronistic, but it’s just off the top of my head) was euphemised to curse and then, to cuss.
Remember that case of Ann Coulter claiming that she ‘did not call [whoever it was] a faggot’? She was vilified for making reference to the word (albeit by using it), while she didn’t actually use it descriptively (see here).
Anyway, In Australia, I believe it’s less the case, though of course there are still some prudes around. I prefer to think that it is not the words themselves that are offensive, but the communicated intention behind them. Thus discussing words meta-linguistically, which cannot give the discussed words any communicative intention, are not offensive.
A filled pause, that sounds about right, thanks. But I also dig hesitative, for it’s technicality, and I think I’ll continue to use it.
And, I’ll fix the italics in your comment.