Víctor Carranza-Pinedo

Particularistic pejoratives (PPs) mock individuals based on their personal attributes yet lack a precise definition. This paper seeks to refine our understanding of PPs by examining their derogatory profiles across three dimensions: descriptiveness, intensity, and slurring potential. I propose a four‐way taxonomy and argue that current frameworks fail to account for PPs beyond “all‐purpose” terms like jerk or bastard. To address this, I develop a pragmatic explanation of how PPs derogate by leveraging social stigmas and expectations. Finally, I argue that slurs constitute a subset of PPs associated with dominance hierarchies, advancing our understanding of both forms of verbal harm.

Particularistic pejoratives (PPs) mock individuals based on their personal attributes yet lack a precise definition. This paper seeks to refine our understanding of PPs by examining their derogatory profiles across three dimensions: descriptiveness, intensity, and slurring potential. I propose a four‐way taxonomy and argue that current frameworks fail to account for PPs beyond “all‐purpose” terms like jerk or bastard. To address this, I develop a pragmatic explanation of how PPs derogate by leveraging social stigmas and expectations. Finally, I argue that slurs constitute a subset of PPs associated with dominance hierarchies, advancing our understanding of both forms of verbal harm.

This paper introduces a mechanistic framework for understanding animal emotions, which is designed for biologists studying animal behavior and welfare. Researchers often examine emotions—short-term valenced experiences—through behavioral, somatic, and cognitive indicators. However, proposed indicators are often ambivalent (emerge in contexts with opposing emotional valence) or undetermined (arise in both affective and non-affective processes). To ground hypothesis formulation regarding animal emotions on a better foundation, the paper advocates for building on what we know regarding the mechanisms of human emotions—the behavioral rules that transform sensory input into motor output during emotional episodes. In particular, it integrates key assumptions from three dominant psychological theories of emotion—innate, appraisal, and network theories—into a single framework and argues that this can serve as a common ground to transfer insights from human to animal emotion research. Additionally, the paper tackles the question of how emotions relate to closely linked processes such as decision-making, distinguishing between parallel architecture models—where emotions and decision-making processes interact but remain distinct—and unified models—where affective states are conceived as integral to goal-oriented processes. Finally, we discuss how our mechanistic proposal can help us address four key questions in animal emotion research: Do animals experience emotions? If so, which animals experience emotions? Which emotions do they experience? And how do these emotions compare to human emotions? The paper concludes by emphasizing the need for further empirical research on the mechanisms of animal emotions and their distinction from other processes.

Scaffolding interactions are typically portrayed optimistically within 4E frameworks of cognition. In this paper, we argue that this “dogma of harmony” has also influenced research on scaffolding interactions during development. Specifically, we show how some scaffolding interactions aimed at supporting task execution and skill acquisition in early childhood can inadvertently lead to detrimental effects on learners’ wellbeing, understood in terms of what individuals are capable of achieving rather than through the resources they possess. To characterise these effects, we propose a model that highlights the manifold ways in which individual differences interact with scaffolds’ features during developmental processes. Using this model, we discuss two types of maladaptive scenarios: those where the scaffolds are efficient to various degrees depending on _inter_-individual differences, and those where scaffolds’ efficiency is tied to particular timeframes depending on _intra_-individual differences. The upshot of this discussion is that, to challenge the harmony dogma, more inclusive education policies should not only consider scaffolds’ efficiency but also determine whether individuals can adequately transform their use into valuable opportunities for their learning across contexts and timescales.

This paper explores the derogatory uses of nicknames within closely-knit social settings such as villages, households, and schools. By examining ethnographic and psychological data on nicknaming practices, this paper contends that pejorative nicknames and slurs share structural and functional attributes. On the one hand, pejorative nicknames and slurs can elicit deep offence regardless of the speaker’s intentions or whether they occur within speech reports. On the other, pejorative nicknames can contribute to creating and reinforcing unjust intra-group hierarchies, hence mirroring the role of slurs within a smaller social scale. To explain these shared attributes, this paper argues (i) that both forms of verbal aggression index multiple dimensional qualities such as ‘negative valence’, ‘neutral arousal’, and ‘high dominance’ rather than discrete emotional categories such as ‘contempt’ or ‘anger’, and (ii) that the expression of high dominance in social interactions underlies their capacity to offend. Then, it translates this hypothesis into a Bayesian model of sociolinguistic variation inspired by Heather Burnett’s work on identity construction, thus integrating pragmatic reasoning into a psychologically informed framework for interpreting emotional cues. By studying both phenomena in tandem, this paper shows how understanding nicknaming dynamics within smaller speech-act communities can contribute to our comprehension of the derogatory impact of slurs in more intricate social contexts.

This paper argues that all-purpose pejoratives such as ‘jerk’ or ‘bastard’ are just plain vanilla descriptions of personality traits that are generally seen as impairing for the self and for interpersonal relationships across different contexts. Thus, all-purpose pejoratives derogate their referents through generalized conversational implicatures: it is common knowledge that those who use these terms accept certain kind of (negative) evaluations and that uses of those terms express such evaluations. One of the main advantages of this approach is that it can be extended to more ‘thick’ pejoratives such as ‘wimp’ or ‘chicken’, which, as Kaplan (1998) himself suggested, are ‘purely descriptive’ of personality traits that are generally seen as ‘personal failings’. Before defending this theory, I criticize i) the standard assumption that allpurpose pejoratives are expressive and ii) the alternative semantic view that allpurpose pejoratives are conventionally associated with a judge parameter.

This paper critically examines the philosophical underpinnings of current experimental investigation into animal affect-related decision-making. Animals’ affective states are standardly operationalised by linking positively valenced states with “approach” behaviours and negatively valenced states with “avoidance” behaviours. While this operationalisation has provided a helpful starting point to investigate the ecological role of animals’ internal states, there is extensive evidence that valenced and motivational states do not always neatly align, namely, instances where “liking” does not entail “wanting” (and vice versa). To address this limitation, this paper proposes the (re-)integration of dominance as a dimension of affect. In particular, I argue that dominance, construed as a measure of organisms’ self-assessed behavioural control, can provide the necessary nuance to understand animal affect-related decision-making. Thus, after addressing the theoretical and methodological challenges related to incorporating dominance into a definition of “core affect”, this paper introduces the “Valence-Arousal-Dominance” model of animal affect. This model is explored for its potential applications in two domains. Firstly, in the study of animal affect-related decision-making under predation risk, and secondly, in the study of animal wellbeing. Through these applications, this model aims to bring experimental paradigms of animal affect-related behaviour closer to ecologically relevant scenarios.

Swear words are highly colloquial expressions that have the capacity to signal the speaker's affective states, i.e., to display the speaker's feelings with respect to a certain stimulus. For this reason, swear words are often called 'expressives'. Which linguistic mechanisms allow swear words display affective states, and, more importantly, how can such 'affective content' be characterized in a theory of meaning? Even though research on expressive meaning has produced models that integrate the affective aspects of swear words in a compositional framework, there is extensive evidence that swear words cannot be assigned a single or stable affective interpretation across contexts. For example, even though expletive adjectives (e.g., 'damn'), particularistic insults (e.g., 'bastard') and slurs (e.g., 'wop') typically express (and elicit) negatively valenced affective states, they can also be interpreted positively in some contexts. Thus, inspired in recent developments in formal sociolinguistics, I propose an 'indexical' approach to affective meaning. Under this approach, an affective expression is associated with a set of affective qualities, anyone of which may emerge at a given context depending on the interpreter's prior assumptions about the speaker's affective states and/or relation with the target of the swear word. To define this set, also called 'indexical field', I will use the dimensions pleasure, arousal and dominance, standardly employed in cognitive psychology to characterize and measure affective episodes. In this dissertation, thus, the affective meaning of an expression is given by the set of affective states it typically conveys within a linguistic community, but its interpretation at a given context is established by taking into account the interpreter's prior assumptions about the speaker's affective states and/or attitudes with respect to the target of the affective expression.

Slurs’ meaning is highly unstable. A slurring utterance like ‘Hey, F, where have you been?’ (where F is a slur) may receive a wide array of interpretations depending on various contextual factors such as the speaker’s social identity, their relationship to the target group, tone of voice, and more. Standard semantic, pragmatic, and non-content theories of slurs have proposed different mechanisms to account for some or all types of variability observed, but without providing a unified framework that allows us to understand how different contextual factors simultaneously influence slurs’ interpretation. To address this issue, I argue that slurs convey dimensional qualities such as, e.g., ‘negative valence, neutral arousal, high dominance’ instead of discrete emotional categories such as ‘contempt’. Then, I translate this hypothesis into a game-theoretic model of slurs’ interpretation inspired by Heather Burnett’s pioneering work on identity construction. This new model, called ‘Affective Meaning Games’ (AMG), captures the variability of slurs and integrates pragmatic reasoning within an independently motivated psychological understanding of emotional states.