DOI: 10.5433/2237-4876.

2021v24n3p42

Politically Correct Language: Linguistc Variables for Persons

with Disabilities, Black and Homosexual in
a Speaking Community
Reinaldo César ZANARDI*

* PhD in Languaje Studies at the Universidade Estadual de Londrina-UEL (2019). Collaborating Researcher UEL.
E-mail: [email protected].

Abstract:
The politically correct language (PCL) proposes the substitution of forms considered pejorative.
In this sense, are the linguistic variants of this language modality incorporated into the speech
of ordinary people? This is the research question that guides this work. The objective of
this study is to verify whether the forms proposed by the PCL are incorporated in a speech
community in relation to the person with disabilities, black and homosexual. This work is
based on the theoretical-methodological principles of sociolinguistic research and studies on
linguistic beliefs and attitudes, with field research. The corpus consists of eight informants,
stratified by: sex, age group and education. For the field research, a specific questionnaire was
developed from images of the three segments that make up the study. From the images, the
linguistic variants presented by the informants were cataloged. The three themes registered
228 occurrences with 26 linguistic variants. Among the main results are: i) the belief influences
the speaker’s linguistic attitude in the choice of their variants; ii) even if speakers do not
dominate the variants proposed by the PCL, they show their beliefs when speaking; iii) the
PCL variants are more incorporated by informants with higher education.

Keywords:
Sociolinguistic research. Linguistic belief. Politically correct language.

Signum: Estudos da Linguagem, Londrina, v.24, i.3, p. 42-57, Dec. 2021

Received on: 19/08/2020

Accepted on: 08/02/2021
 Politically Correct Language: Linguistic
Variables for Persons with Disabilities, Black and
Homosexual in a Speaking Community
Reinaldo César Zanardi

Introduction

The Brazilian linguistic reality is diversified and the richness of the Brazilian Portuguese is due
to multifactorial aspects, from the languages of Brazilian immigrants and indigenous people through the
literacy process in schools to the contributions of the mass media. The language is part of the heritage
of a population, and such a heritage can be understood from a sociocultural point of view, revealing
characteristics developed and modulated over time, that is, by history.
As a social activity, the language in use presupposes a natural phenomenon to the human being,
which allows them to grasp the contents, giving them a meaning, which depends on a series of factors
such as the context and the historical-ideological process of those involved in the situation. It is in the
communication between individuals that an important phenomenon occurs for the study of language:
interaction, understood as the factor that join people and groups in a continuous process of interpretation
in which meanings are constructed or reconstructed.
As a system of values, language announces the arbitrariness of the linguistic sign, that is, the
convention recognized by speakers of the same speech mode. However, the arbitrariness of the sign,
which occurs in a language, can be agreed upon by the speakers themselves based on the establishment
of previous criteria that involve different segments in the use of linguistic variants. This is the politically
correct language (PCL) scenario, whose convention is forged in a given sociocultural context either to
alleviate lexical items with negative meanings and considered pejorative, or to seek to reduce prejudice or
discrimination to groups considered socially vulnerable, who end up stigmatized by linguistic forms in use.
Many researchers debate this perspective of language and its effectiveness in combating
discrimination, since the word – as a materiality of ideology – can stigmatize groups and segments,
leading to the maintenance of prejudice, which can generate discrimination.

Attitude and Linguistic Beliefs

Speech, as an exercise of language, enables countless studies to understand the mechanisms that
lead to linguistic evolution. Here evolution does not have an evaluative character – positive or negative –
and presents itself as a transformation process that can characterize variations or changes.
The use of PCL is characterized, therefore, by a linguistic attitude that considers – in a group
or individual adept at the practice of it – psychological, social, historical and cultural aspects that lead to
a certain behavior or attitude towards the language.
The concept of linguistic attitude comes from Social Psychology, an area that began to be
interested in the matter from the 1960s onwards, with the sociocultural perspective of language. It
was from the studies of Wallace Lambert, in A Social Psychology of Bilingualism, that the topic came to
be considered, even becoming a data collection technique to measure linguistic attitudes. In the work,

Signum: Estudos da Linguagem, Londrina, v.24, i. 2, p. 42-57, Dec. 2021 43

Lambert presents the results of a survey, led by him, with a group of scholars using the technique that
became known as matched guise.
Before defining the concept of linguistic attitude, it is necessary to conceptualize what the
attitude itself is. For this purpose, Lambert and Lambert (1966) state:

[…] an attitude is an organized and coherent way of thinking, feeling and reacting in relation to people,
groups, social issues or, more generally, to any event that takes place in our surroundings. Its essential
components are thoughts and beliefs, feelings (or emotions) and tendencies to react. We say that an
attitude is formed when these components are so interrelated that specific reactive feelings and tendencies
are correctly associated with a particular way of thinking about certain people or events (LAMBERT;
LAMBERT, 1966, p. 77-78).

Rodrigues (1975) synthesizes the elements that characterize social attitude. “(a) lasting
organization of beliefs and cognitions in general; (b) an affective charge for or against; (c) a predisposition
to the action; (d) a direction to a social object.” (RODRIGUES, 1975, p. 397).
The definition, proposed by the author, refers to the individual’s behavior in society based on
the various elements that constitute them, that is, they mobilize several aspects to react in a certain way
and not in another. In this context, the linguistic aspect is present, a characteristic inherent to the human
being. After all, language is acquired and speaking one way and not another reveals the speaker’s attitudes,
based on their beliefs.
In this context, this work adopts as a conceptual principle – for linguistic attitude – the definition
proposed by Moreno Fernández (2009). The author states that the linguistic attitude is the manifestation
of the social attitude of individuals,

(...) distinguished by focusing and referring specifically to both the language and the use made of
it in society, and when talking about “language”, we include any type of linguistic variety: attitudes
towards different styles; different sociolects and dialects or different natural languages (MORENO
FERNÁNDEZ, 2009, p. 177-178).

The author also states that the attitude towards language and speech is especially attractive when:

(...) one appreciates in their just magnitude the fact that languages are not only bearers of certain linguistic
forms and attributes, but they are also capable of transmitting social meanings and connotations and also
sentimental values (MORENO FERNÁNDEZ, 2009, p. 178).

The attitude, even being a social manifestation due to the speaker’s insertion in a certain context,
reveals itself as an individual act that involves personal aspects, that is, the individual values – from the
social context – provoke a linguistic attitude.
Politically correct language is adopted, mainly, by professionals from areas who work directly with
vulnerable communities and audiences, often stigmatized, and public policy activists. In this sense, the
objective of this work is to analyze the speaker’s attitude, without political militancy, in face of the politically
correct lexicon, verifying if the forms defended in this modality are incorporated by the speech community.
By the way, in this work, we assume the definition of speech community, adopted by Moreno Fernández
(2009, p.23). “A speech community is formed by a group of speakers who share at least a variety of language,
some rules of use, an interpretation of that use, some attitudes and the same valuation of linguistic forms.”

Signum: Estudos da Linguagem, Londrina, v.24, i. 2, p. 42-57, Dec. 2021 44

Methodological Procedures

The research question that this paper poses is: are PCL linguistic variants incorporated in the speech
of ordinary people? This study is based on the theoretical-methodological principles of sociolinguistic
research and the studies of linguistic beliefs and attitudes, with a field survey. Interviews were conducted
with eight informants, stratified according to three social variables: gender (male and female), age group
(young people: 18-35 years, and elderly: 50-65 years) and education (basic and higher education).
Workers from a university in Londrina constitute the universe of informants, working in various
sectors of the institution: administrative, attendance, library, information technology, concierge and
general services, having not been considered professors or course coordinators. Activists from social
movements and political parties were also disregarded of the selection of informants, as people in this
context tend to be consciously concerned with the use of words and expressions whose meanings denote
prejudice. This exclusion is justified to avoid biasing the search results.
Among the informants with basic education, one completed high education. This is informant
5, male aged 50-65 years. During the interviews1, there was not in this age group, in the institution, an
informant worker with only elementary education.
For the interview, a specific data collection technique was developed. As the interviewer cannot
anticipate the objective of the interview, it was communicated that three sets of photographs would
be presented, with six images each, in a total of 18 pieces. The images deal with three distinct themes:
disability, race/color and homosexuality.
With a notebook, the interviewer showed the images and asked the informant to describe
the content based on their own knowledge. The lexicon presented by the informants, therefore, was
spontaneous without prior contact with lexical items or politically correct language variants.
Of all the pictures, 17 have journalistic content, that is, they accompany online reports and
socially represent real facts and events, based on the characters approached journalistically in the texts
published. Only one picture is of an advertising nature and, even so, it was part of a journalistic article
about advertisements that caused controversy.
The first set of images refers to Deficiency (Figure 1). The six pics encompass disability in
different situations. The informant was asked to describe the imagery content.

Figure 1: Images of the Disability theme2

Source: Prepared by the author.

1
The interviews were carried out in 2015, for the discipline “Sociolinguistic Research”, as part of the author’s credits as a postgraduate
student – doctoral level.
2
Source of images (clockwise): Image1: Globo Esporte/G1. (20/04/2014). Image2: Acessa.com (15/12/2010). Image3: Source: UOL
News Portal (17/05/2011). Image4: Source: G1. (10/07/2008). Image5: Source: G1 (04/09/2013) Image6: Source: Gazeta do Povo
newspaper (08/04/2013).

Signum: Estudos da Linguagem, Londrina, v.24, i. 2, p. 42-57, Dec. 2021 45

 To describe and analyze the answers and for the purpose of methodological organization, the
occurrences were grouped by equivalence, that is, lexical items that are close and can be considered
synonymous by inflection of number and gender.
Theme 1 (Disability), in the data collection, presented the following variants: 1) disabled (physically
and visually impaired); 2) paraplegic; 3) disabled person (visually impaired person, blind person, special person); 4)
handicapped person (physically handicapped, visually handicapped, handicapped, visually handicapped and physically
handicapped); 5) wheelchair user; 6) lost sight; 7) blind; 8) dependent.
The second series of images refers to Race/Color (Figure 2). The images show black people in
various everyday situations.

Figure 2: Images of the Race/Color theme3

Source: Prepared by the author.

By grouping by equivalence, theme 2 (Race/Color), based on field interviews, was organized as

follows: 1) black (negro, negros, negra, negras4); 2) moreno5 (moreno, morena6, lighter brown, darker brown, much darker
brown); 3) negro (preto, pretos, preta, pretas7); 4) colored (colored, colored person); 5) black ethnicity; 6) dark; 7) Afro-
Brazilian; 8) mulatto; 9) dark brown.
The last set of photographs refers to the theme Homosexuality, whose images also reflect
different contexts (Figure 3).
Following the methodology of grouping by equivalence, theme 3 (Homosexuality), according
to the survey respondents, presented the following linguistic forms: 1) gay (gay, gays); 2) homosexual (homo,
homosexual, homosexuals); 3) male/female couple (women’s couple, woman’s group, two men, men’s group, female group,
male group, both men, man with man, woman with woman); 4) two boys/two women (two boys, two young men, two women);
5) lesbian; 6) dyke (sapatão, sapatona, sapatonas, mulheres sapatonas8); 7) two fathers; 8) people of the same sex; 9) bis.

3
Source of images (clockwise): Image1: Revista Isto É (09/21/2012). Image2: Benetton Campaign/Portal UOL (19/09/2012). Image3:
Imagick Psychic Research Institute. Image4: Agência Brasil EBC (30/10/2013). Image5: News Ceará (14/10/2014). Image 6: GGN
Newspaper (22/02/2013)
4
Refering to singular and plural masculine, singular and plural feminine, respectively.
5
Dark-skinned.
6
Refering to masculine and feminine, respectively.
7
Refering to singular and plural masculine, singular and plural feminine, respectively.
8
Singular masculine augmentative, singular and plural feminine augmentative, dyke women.

Signum: Estudos da Linguagem, Londrina, v.24, i. 2, p. 42-57, Dec. 2021 46

 Figure 3: Images of the Homosexuality theme9

Source: Prepared by the author.

Discussion of Results

Altogether, the three themes registered 228 occurrences with 26 linguistic variants. Theme 1
(Disability) had 67 occurrences in eight forms. Theme 2 (Race/Color) had 62 occurrences for nine lexical
items. For theme 3 (Homosexuality), 99 occurrences were recorded in nine variants.

Theme Disability

In the theme Disability, out of 67 occurrences, the most used by speakers is disabled with 32
records, which is equivalent to 48%, that is, almost half (Graph 1).

Graph 1: Distribution of the variants of the theme Disability

Source: The author.

In second place are four variants, with six occurrences each (9%): paraplegic, disabled person,
handicapped and wheelchair user. In third place are blind and lost sight, with five occurrences each (7%). Finally,
it is dependent, with one occurrence (2%).
9
Source of images (clockwise): Image1: G1 (12/06/2009). Image2: UOL Portal(09/12/2013). Image3: G1 (25/05/2014). Image4: Abril.
com (19/04/2010). Image5: BOL Portal. Image6: Folha de São Paulo Newspaper Online (24/04/2013).

Signum: Estudos da Linguagem, Londrina, v.24, i. 2, p. 42-57, Dec. 2021 47

 The form deficient, which includes other equivalent lexicons, was used by almost all informants.
Only informant 6 (woman, age group 50-65 years and elementary school) did not use this name. She used
the variants wheelchair, lost sight and dependent.
Data show that deficient is widespread and consolidated as an important lexical item in the
researched speech community. However, this can be considered stigmatized, if the guidelines of the
public bodies that elaborate the policies for the service to the segment are considered.
The “Manual of Orientation and Support for Assistance to People with Disabilities”, by the
Secretariat for Human Rights of the Brazilian Presidency of the Republic, offers tips for serving this public.

To start with, it is important to emphasize that words act on people and may or may not discriminate.
What we say shows what we think and in what we believe. So, in the first place, it must be said that the
correct nomenclature to be used is “person with disability” (BRASIL, s/d, p. 4).

In the division of the disabled person segment, the manual establishes as correct forms, blind
or visually impaired people, people with physical and motor disabilities, deaf or hearing impaired people, and people with
intellectual disabilities.
Based on the manual approach of the Federal Government, this study records only six occurrences
of the variant disabled person (9% of the total), which can be considered a form of prestige in this context.
The study allows us to state that the speech community mainly uses stigmatized items and, even so, the
informants showed concern with the way they would use to refer to the person with a disability.
Baronas (2011) recognizes that “the examples show that political correctness has to some extent
influenced not only the conduct of individuals, but their language.” This perception is echoed in the
speech of informant 2 (woman, age group 18-35 years, elementary school), who – for people with visual
impairments – would not use the word blind.

Int. __Besides being visually impaired, would you call it another way?
Inf2__ I don’t think so. Because blind would be a very heavy word, right.
Int.__Heavy. Why do you think blind is a heavy word?
Inf2__Because sometimes people don’t think the word to say, the thing really hurts... is takes a hit!

The interviewer also asked if there would be – for people with physical disabilities – some
expression that they would not use.

Inf2__ Cripple. Never!

Int. __Cripple. Why?
Inf2__ Because it’s also very heavy. Ah! The crippled person. It’s too heavy for the person to be like that.

Historically, the name cripple was used for a long time from a conception of disability and fell
into disuse. Currently, this terminology is pejorative and depreciates the segment to which it refers.
In this sense, the informant’s willingness to refuse the use of such an expression coincides with
the reflections of Moreno Fernández (2009). He claims that linguistic attitudes are psychosocial attitudes.

(...) languages have a meaning or social connotations; it is natural that they are appreciated and evaluated
according to the position or social characteristics of their speakers. Therefore, it is not easy to delimit
where the attitude towards a linguistic variety begins and where the attitude towards the social group or
the speaker of this variety ends (MORENO FERNÁNDEZ, 2009, p. 179).

Signum: Estudos da Linguagem, Londrina, v.24, i. 2, p. 42-57, Dec. 2021 48

 The worry behavior in reference to the use of the correct expression, which reveals a linguistic
attitude based on the belief that the word has a great weight in relation to another, was also observed in
another interviewee. Informant 3 (male, age range 18-35 years, higher education) even spoke about the
correct use of the expression:

Int.__You said visually impaired and physically disabled, would you use another word to designate these
people?
Inf3__People with visual impairment and that would be correct. I even forget. Visual impairment bearer
and “bearer of physical disability”.

The informant reveals concern with the correct use of the word, but mixes the forms person
and bearer (People with visual impairment and people with physical disabilities). This is because the
expression “disabled person” was also coined to refer to the person with a disability. However, nowadays,
“disabled person” is mainly used for the educational environment. From forms and/or interviews,
the special needs of the student in the teaching and learning process are raised. Thus, the educational
establishment can provide the necessary resources to promote teaching and learning.
In the context of the variant people with physical disabilities, 9% of the total occurrences were
registered. Here, it is even more explicit the collection of expressions that can be taken as equivalent
and that reveal the confusion caused by the proposal of this language modality: physically disabled, visually
impaired, special needs people, visual carrier need and people with physical disabilities.
Informant 8 (female, age group 50-65 years, higher education) also explained the attitude of
using the correct variants.

Int.__Some that you wouldn’t use?

Inf. 8__I think that... no, I would not use blind nor paraplegics, I think it is/that type of term is no longer
used.
Int.__Right.
Inf. 8__Visually disabled, people with special needs... I don’t know if there would be any other.

The informant’s speech reveals a learning process in which the attitude towards the stigmatized
forms, which she denies, leads to considering others considered more appropriate. This finds resonance
in Rodrigues (1975, p. 406) who states: “if attitudes influence the processes of perception and motivation,
it seems logical to infer that they will play a relevant role in the learning process.”
This means to say that the attitude leads the individual to apprehend and, with that, to learn.
“It is reasonable to hypothesize that a material consistent with a person’s attitudes should be more easily
learned than one that clashes with them.” (RODRIGUES, 1975, p. 406-407).
It is important to highlight, in this theme, the variants wheelchair and paraplegic. These forms were
used by four informants, considering the three social variables (gender, age and education). This means
stating that the variant is used by both men and women, young and old, with elementary and higher education.

Theme Race/Color

The theme Race/Color registered 62 occurrences in nine variants (Graph 2).

Signum: Estudos da Linguagem, Londrina, v.24, i. 2, p. 42-57, Dec. 2021 49

 Graph 2: Distribution of the Variants Race/Color Theme

Source: The author.

The most used is the variant black (negro), with 23 occurrences (37%). In second place is dark
skinned (moreno), with 18 occurrences (29%), followed by negro (nigger), with nine (14%); colored (de cor), with
four occurrences (6%); black ethnicity (etnia negra), with three (5%); dark (escuro), with two (3%); Afro-
Brazilian (afro-brasileiro), mulatto (mulato) and dark brown (marrom escuro), with one occurrence each (2%).
The variant black, and its equivalences with gender and number inflection, was used by six
informants, that is, by 75% of the corpus, by men, women, young and elderly informants, with elementary
and higher education. This coincides with what is determined in the booklet “Politically Correct & Human
Rights,” by the Brazilian Special Secretariat for Human Rights, published in 2004.

Most militants of the black movement prefer this term to “negro”, which they use with pride to
affirm the values of Afro-Brazilian culture. The context determines the pejorative meaning of the two
expressions. In certain situations, both “black” and “negro” can be highly offensive. In others, they can
denote affection, for example, in the diminutives “neguinho” (“little blacky”), “minha preta” (“my black
woman”) etc. (BRASILb, 2004, p. 26)

It is reckless to say that most of the informants in this study have used the variant black,
consciously based on the knowledge of the politically correct language proposal. The form black, as
explained by the Special Secretariat for Human Rights, is used in situations of a positive nature, for
example, in campaigns that show “Black Pride”, “100% black”; and negative, in expressions such as
blacklist, black sheep, black market, among others.
During the interviews, the two informants who did not use the variant black draw attention: they
are black. Informers 1 (male, age group 18-35 years old, elementary school) and 6 (female, age group
50-65 years old, elementary school) preferred the form dark skinned, lighter brown, darker brown, much darker
brown. The variant dark skinned, the second most used, was registered in 18 occurrences, that is, 29% of
the total. This form was not used by any other informant in the corpus.
Informants 1 and 6 have only elementary education and access to schooling can be a factor in
strengthening self-esteem that affects the language in use. Furthermore, not identifying oneself as black
can be a self-defense strategy. After all, “we talk about the inferiority of black people based on empirical
observation of their socioeconomic condition” (PINSKY, 2004, p. 6).

Signum: Estudos da Linguagem, Londrina, v.24, i. 2, p. 42-57, Dec. 2021 50

 This perception can be reinforced by the speech of informant 6 who believes that the variant
dark skinned is more delicate than the word negro. For her, the interlocutor may feel bad, when called negro.

Int.__What if we were going to talk about color?

Inf6__If we were talking about color, we would say: he is dark skinned.
Int.__Dark skinned.
Info6__Dark skinned. It’s a word that... if I’m going to speak negro, they think it’s bad, right. The word
brown is a word that it... is more... delicate.

The informant knows the two variants (negro and dark skinned) and chooses the one that she
believes is the most suitable for referring to the segment in question. She chooses what she considers
more “delicate,” that is, she gives a positive value to the lexical item selected during her speech.
The belief that the word can offend is also expressed by informant 2 (woman, age group 18-35
years, elementary school), which reinforces the linguistic attitude based on their own beliefs.

Int.__Would you call it any other way?

Inf2__Like... To avoid prejudice: a person of color.
Int.__Ah color.
Inf2__It would be much less... like, heavy.
Int.__Heavy. And what wouldn’t you call it?
Inf.2__Black.
Int.__Wouldn’t you call him black?
Inf2 __No. Never! Or are you dark. Because there are several themes when the person is prejudiced,
racist, right So never... the black person, no! Person of color, what a beautiful color, you are a mulatto.

The informant mentions prejudice and racism that can be invoked from the way she refers to
a third person. However, even with such concern, the informant ends up using expressions considered
pejorative, such as colored, dark, black and mulatto.
Although she uses forms considered pejorative by the PCL, her linguistic attitude towards the
topic in question is evident, based on her belief. Being concerned about using the correct word, so as not
to offend, is not a guarantee of using politically correct variants. The informant stated that she would not
use the lexical item black, but during the interview she used this variant in two moments.

Int.__And the misery, who would it reach the most?

Inf2__Of course, people more... middle-class people... people of color suffer more, you know, with that.
If it’s a person like that, more or less, who passes will try to help, but... [MANY] if you see a person like
that, why? It’s a black person, let them, let them die.
Int.__And this image that contrasts with that one?
Inf2__That the person, despite being black, they can succeed in life.
Int.__ Huh.
Inf2__Regardless of color, he struggled to be there today.

This situation – of becoming aware of the use of certain variants – is supported by the studies
and reflections of López Morales (1993), for whom the linguistic attitude is not a process inherent to
human beings, but something to be acquired socially. This means stating that this is a process taught and
learned from the individual’s socialization.

Signum: Estudos da Linguagem, Londrina, v.24, i. 2, p. 42-57, Dec. 2021 51

 Still on the theme Race/Color, the variant negro, the third most used (14% of occurrences),
appears in the speech of four women informants, both young and elderly, with elementary and higher
education. The variant, according to the data collected in the field research, refers to the person’s skin
color and not the race of the characters shown in the photographs.

Theme Homosexuality

The nine forms registered under the theme Homosexuality totaled 99 occurrences (Graph 3).

Graph 3: Distribution of variants on the topic Homosexuality

Source: The author.

Of the total, the variant gay appears in first place with 38 occurrences (39%); followed by
homosexual, with 18 (18%); male/female couple, 14 (14%); two boys/two women, 11 (11%); lesbian, 9 (9%); dyke,
6 (6%); two fathers, people of the same sex and bis, with 1 occurrence each (1%).
The variant gay appears in the speech of all informants in the research, that is, it is a universalized
expression used by all social strata: men and women; young and old; with elementary and higher education.
This reality can be explained by the massification of this lexical item in the news media, for example,
about gay parade, gay marriage, gay couples and gay adoption, gay kissing in soap operas and movies.
This reality shows, once again, that the linguistic attitude is socially constructed. This variant –
gay – can be considered, therefore, of prestige, since it is indicated as the adequate expression to refer to
the segment. This form even integrates the acronym of the LGBT movement (Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals,
Transvestites and Transsexuals).
The linguistic attitude towards the variant gay is evidenced in the speech of informant 2 (woman,
age group 18-35, elementary school), which makes clear the way she would not use to refer to the public.

Signum: Estudos da Linguagem, Londrina, v.24, i. 2, p. 42-57, Dec. 2021 52

 Int.__And how would you define them?
Inf2__Gays, right.
Int.__Gays. Are there any word you wouldn’t use?
Inf2__Faggot. I think it’s heavy. There are so many ways... Ah! he is homosexual; his option. Why saying:
ah, you faggot! That’s so ugly... It’s so heavy that word.

Informant 4 (female, age group 18-35 years, higher education) also reveals this attitude, in two
excerpts of the interview, both referring to gays and lesbians.

Int.__Is there a word you wouldn’t use? Any designation?

Inf4__ Which I wouldn’t use?
Int.__Yeah!
Inf4__Dyke.
Int.__ Why?
Inf4__I think it’s offensive, isn’t it?
Int.__Because it’s offensive. Right...
Inf4__I think it’s kind of making fun, in this sense.
Int.__Is there another one that you’ve heard and wouldn’t use?
Inf4__Fag, faggot.
Int.__Why?
Inf4.__I don’t know... Because I think it’s more aggressive because/ at least when people refer to it in
these words, they’re being aggressive.

The linguistic attitude of the informants is the consequence of a psychological attitude towards
the fact itself. Lambert and Lambert (1966) argue that attitudes play a significant role in behavior itself.
“(...) for example, they affect our judgments and perception of others, help to determine the groups
we associate with, the professions we finally choose and even the philosophies under which we live”
(LAMBERT; LAMBERT, 1966, p. 83).
faggot or queer, considered offensive by gays and activists of the movement, were not registered,
the variant dyke was registered to refer to the homosexual woman, registered in 6% of the occurrences.
The variant was used by three informants, that is, 37.5% of the corpus: two women (one young and one
elderly), with elementary education; and an elderly man with a college degree.
Why did not the forms fag, faggot or queer occur in the study carried out? It is necessary to deepen
this questioning in other studies, but the author’s perception is related to the stigmatization of these
variants, known by the population, mainly, in jokes and situations that belittle the homosexual condition.
The informants were unaware of the research objective, but the interview has a formal aspect, and this
may have put these variants away from the interviewed speakers.
The second most used form (homosexual) is also widespread. Out of the eight informants, six
(75%) used it, that is, men and women, young and old, with elementary and higher education.
The third variant (male/female couple) and the fourth with the highest number of occurrences
(two boys/two women) had 14 (14%) and 11 records (11%), respectively. It is noteworthy that this variant
is centered on male and female gender, and not on sexual orientation. This also reveals the linguistic
attitude towards the subject. Informer 6 (female, age group 50-65 years, elementary school) recognizes
the couple as two men, approaching the variant by the male sex. She hesitates when talking about the
sexual orientation of the characters in the photograph.

Signum: Estudos da Linguagem, Londrina, v.24, i. 2, p. 42-57, Dec. 2021 53

 Int.__Here is a couple, whom you called a group, there [in another photo]. It’s a couple of what?
Inf6__ But there are two men!
Int. __ Yes. It is a couple... they are married and have adopted three children.
Inf6__ Hmm... I’ll say the word.
Int.__ You can speak. No problem.
Inf6__ They are gay!

When using the word gay, the informant reveals concern, and the researcher’s impression is that,
for her, it is an insult. It should be noted that this variant is of prestige, since it is used by activists in the
segment and considered adequate by politically correct language manuals.

With respect to people who are attracted to or have romantic or sexual relationships with people of their
own sex, use the following identifications: gay – for men and women; understood – for men and women;
lesbian for women; transvestite and transsexual – for transgender people; bisexual – for men and women
(BRASILb, 2004, p. 9).

Researcher Fiorin (2008) states that the emergence of politically correct language gives
public expression to the identity of historically oppressed segments, such as women, black people and
homosexuals. For him, the movement reveals

(…) the strength of these “minorities”, which were discriminated against, ridiculed, disregarded. It is
intended, with it, to combat prejudice, proscribing a vocabulary that is strongly negative in relation to
these social groups. The idea is that, by changing the language, discriminatory attitudes change (FIORIN,
2008, p. 1).

Fiorin (2008) states that PCL provokes a series of reflections on the functioning of language
and draws attention to two important aspects, the use of euphemism and the neutrality of the words
proposed by the modality’s defenders. For him, “excessive care in the search for euphemisms to designate
certain social groups reveals the existence of deep-rooted prejudices in social life” (FIORIN, 2008, p.
3). Regarding the second aspect, the author recalls that there are neither objective nor neutral terms. “All
words, Bakhtin teaches, are marked by a social appreciation” (FIORIN, 2008, p. 3).
If, on the one hand, the informants know the expressions recommended by the politically
correct language, showing concern with the type of words they will use; on the other hand, the possibility
of these informants using these expressions to preserve the face should be considered.
The sociolinguistic interview is a form of direct communication in which the speakers expose
themselves by giving their opinion, making value judgments about different situations. This means saying
that they have an image to protect and can choose to preserve their face, that is, to speak according to a
code of etiquette that does not compromise them.
The notion of face was defined by Erving Goffman in the 1970s, in studies of social
representation, in a situation of interaction between people. For the author, individuals may want people
to think well of them or to think that they are thinking very well of the other, leading them to preserve
their own image.
Goffman (1956, p. 5) states that “in everyday life, of course, there is a clear understanding that
first impressions are important”. In this sense, people tend to control what they say in a self-acting game.
The individual

Signum: Estudos da Linguagem, Londrina, v.24, i. 2, p. 42-57, Dec. 2021 54

 (…) can influence this definition by expressing himself in such a way as to give them the kind of
impression that will lead them to act voluntarily in accordance with his own plan. Thus, when an
individual appears in the presence of others, there will usually be some reason for him to mobilize his
activity so that it will convey an impression to others which it is in his interests to convey (GOFFMAN,
1956, p. 2-3).

Even if some informants have used variants of politically correct language such as homosexual,
black and people with disabilities, not resorting to expressions such as deer, negro and cripple, to keep their face,
that is, the appearance during the interview; this does not change the fact that they used the prestige
lexical item, disregarding the stigmatized variants.
Possenti (2009, p. 35) reflects on politically correct language from the perspective of Discourse
Analysis (DA). This is not the theoretical support of this work, but it is worth resorting to the author
who recognizes in this language modality a “confused movement, with ups and downs, which includes
some relevant theses, others extremely debatable and still others frankly laughable.” The author argues
that, although the discussion seems to be of a political order, what happens in the externality of language
is quite relevant to language studies.

Whatever is said in relation to political effects, however, we are facing a movement that has already
produced discursive facts that cannot be ignored, regardless of their historical durability and the solidity
of the theses that justify them (POSSENTI, 2009, p. 35).

Possenti (2009) states that when analyzing some lexical items, proposed by PCL and in use in
the speech of many people, the relationship that these words have with their discursive formations is
evidenced, thus influencing the meanings they acquire in this process, since the meaning varies depending
on the speakers and where they are located.

(...) there is another relevant aspect: some speakers are aware and others not, of the negative or positive
charge of certain terms; or alternatively, some speakers become aware of the negative charge of certain
terms only when applied inappropriately. (POSSENTI, 2009, p. 38).

For DA, Possenti (2009, p. 38) states that the words of the PCL should direct efforts by taking
“the idea of discourse as a social and historical practice of what to see and live in disputed meanings,
materialized in the struggle for the use of certain words and in the fight for the employment of others.”

Conclusions

This paper, whose objective was to analyze the speaker’s attitude, without political militancy,
towards the politically correct lexicon, verifying whether the lexical items defended in this language modality
are incorporated by the speech community, considers some aspects for reflection on PCL functioning:
i) Politically correct language variants were incorporated more by speakers with higher education
than by those with only elementary education, regardless of gender and age group. It can be said that the
social education variable stands out in relation to the other variables (gender and age group).
ii) The speaker reveals a linguistic concern, in the choice of form, in relation to the lexicon of the
themes presented because he believes that the word can hurt someone or be negative for the segment described.
Belief – of a psychological order –, therefore, influences the speaker’s attitude in choosing its variants.

Signum: Estudos da Linguagem, Londrina, v.24, i. 2, p. 42-57, Dec. 2021 55

 iii) Even with linguistic concern in the choice of the lexicon, the speaker does not master all
the forms that constitute the politically correct language, considered adequate by the official bodies,
responsible for the formulation of public policies for the segments involved.
iv) As there is no domain in relation to the politically correct language lexicon, speakers “mix”
the variants to refer to the segments represented in this work, but this does not invalidate the speaker’s
attitude towards the topics covered.
Baronas (2011) recalls that the mere replacement of words – of expressions considered
pejorative by politically correct ones – would not eliminate prejudice, because this is often prior to the
word itself. Replacing forms considered pejorative by softer or milder ones may not reduce or eliminate
prejudice against stigmatized segments.
However, it should be considered that the use of pejorative lexical items also maintains the
ideologically embedded prejudice in the word. Therefore, stigmatized variants can maintain the prejudice
that also contributes to the segments continuing to be discriminated against and the target of social
depreciation. In this sense, PCL is a great challenge.

References
BARONAS, R. L. Mitos da militância politicamente correta. Revista Língua Portuguesa/2011. Disponível em:
<http://revistalingua.uol.com.br/textos/64/artigo249036-1.asp>. Acesso em: 13 jul. 2020.

BRASILa. Presidência da República. Secretaria Nacional de Promoção dos Direitos da Pessoa com
Deficiência. Manual de Orientação e Apoio para Atendimento às Pessoas com Deficiência. Brasília. Disponível
em: <http://www.pessoacomdeficiencia.gov.br/app/acessibilidade/manual-de-orientacao-e-apoio-
para-atendimento-pessoas-com-deficiencia >. Acesso em: 13 jul. 2016.

BRASILb. Presidência da República. Secretaria Especial dos Direitos Humanos.

Politicamente Correto & Direitos Humanos. Brasília: 2004. Disponível em:< http://www.dhnet.org.br/
dados/cartilhas/a_pdf_dht/cartilha_politicamente_correto.pdf>. Acesso em: 21 jul. 2020.

FIORIN, J.L. A Linguagem politicamente correta. Revista Linguasagem, São Carlos, v.1, n.1, p. 1-5,
ago. 2008. Disponível em: <http://www.linguasagem.ufscar.br/index.php/linguasagem/article/
view/532/296> Acesso em: 21 jul. 2020.

GOFFMAN, E. The presentation of self in everyday life. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Social
Sciences Research Centre, 1956.

LAMBERT, W.; LAMBERT, W. Psicologia Social. Tradução de Álvaro Cabral. Rio de Janeiro: Zahar, 1966.

LÓPEZ MORALES, H. Sociolíngüística. 2. ed. Madri: Gredos, 1993. 310p.

MORENO FERNÁNDEZ, F. Princípios de Sociolingüística y Sociologia del Lenguaje. 4. ed. Barcelona: Ariel,
2009.

PINSKY, J. O preconceito nosso de cada dia. In: BRASIL. Presidência da República. Secretaria Especial
dos Direitos Humanos. Politicamente Correto & Direitos Humanos. Brasília: 2004. p. 5-6. Disponível em:
<http://www.dhnet.org.br/dados/cartilhas/a_pdf_dht/cartilha_politicamente_correto.pdf>. Acesso
em: 21 jul. 2020.

Signum: Estudos da Linguagem, Londrina, v.24, i. 2, p. 42-57, Dec. 2021 56

POSSENTI, S. Os limites do discurso: ensaios sobre discurso e sujeito. Paulo: Parábola Editorial, 2009.

RODRIGUES, A. Psicologia Social. 4. ed. Petrópolis: Vozes, 1975.

Signum: Estudos da Linguagem, Londrina, v.24, i. 2, p. 42-57, Dec. 2021 57