In this small-scale, mixed-method investigation, the potential presence of school teacher and teacher trainees’ name-based biases in reaction to schoolchildren’s first names was investigated in two experiments. In the first, German school teachers were asked to qualitatively and quantitatively assess an authentic literary essay written by a monolingual native-speaking German schoolchild. To test for possible name biases, three nearly identical versions of the essay were prepared. The only difference between them was the first names of the child listed as having authored the essay (Uwe, Achilleas, and Mustafa). In the second experiment, the set of personal names was expanded to include female first names (i.e. Heike, Athena, and Fatma) and the study participants were volunteer teacher trainees. In both experiments, evidence for covert name biases was identified. On the basis of these and other findings, the article concludes with concrete suggestions for future research. Chief among these recommendations is a call for more collaborative action research between university faculty and students.

Each year, the US Government receives hundreds of petitions to alter the official name of a geographical feature. Since the nineteenth century, the US Board on Geographic Names (USBGN) has had the task of assessing these requests with a view toward standardizing the nation’s toponymic inventory. During its decision-making, the Board seeks to maximize consistency in the formation, selection, and application of official toponyms, while minimizing potential public injury. The challenges in this regulatory balancing act are particularly apparent with regard to indigenous place names. Using an original corpus compiled from 10 years of USBGN petitions, this empirical study identified patterns in the type, motivation, and argumentation used to (dis)honor Native American identities, histories, and cultures via names and naming. After introducing the UsBGN's policies and practices, these findings are presented with several illustrative examples. The article ends by contextualizing the findings within the broader PC debate and offering future research suggestions.

Donald J. Trump was sworn in as the 45th President of the United States. The run-up to this inauguration was marked by unusually hostile political rhetoric. For many, this linguistic divisiveness was fodder for the post-election surge in physical and verbal aggression. Using a mixed-method approach that combines actuarial and speech act assessment, this study examines 30 Anonymous Threatening Communications sent during the US presidential election for the presence and prevalence of (para)linguistic features associated with verbal and physical threat. The article argues for more forensic linguistic research into mainstream producers and consumers of hate-filled political rhetoric.

In 1790, the American government ratified the first official census of the nation’s population. Since then, the US Census has been taken continuously every ten years and has become indispensable for the equitable distribution of rights and resources. Nevertheless, the Census has not escaped criticism. In particular, its system of ethnoracial nomenclature is regularly attacked for failing to adequately reflect the nation’s changing demography and linguistic sensibilities. Consequently, many critics have called for the introduction of new terminology. The present investigation examines some of the most popular names suggested for one group in particular: US American Residents of Muslim, Middle Eastern and/or Arab descent (AROMMEA). The four racial ethnonyms examined are Arab-American; Middle Easterner/Middle-East American; Muslim-American; and White.1 As this investigation demonstrates, each of these names comes with its own unique set of linguistic, social, and political advantages and disadvantages.

In historic protests sparked by the wrongful deaths of US civilians, demonstrators have taken to the streets in record numbers demanding justice and an end to institutionalized racism. US media coverage of this movement has frequently utilized the racial ethnonym Black as opposed to African(-) American. As this note discusses, this choice in nomenclature may not only be due to the increasing prominence of the Black Lives Matter Movement. It may also be indicative of earlier, large-scale shifts in autonymy. This note presents some of the demographic, linguistic, and sociopolitical factors that may well have played a role in the rising use of Black as both an ethnoracial and political identifier.