It's Not What You Said, It's the Way You Said It: Slurs and Conventional Implicatures

Whiting, Daniel

doi:10.1111/phib.12024

Cited by 76 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…to call someone a D is to say that they ought to be subject to discriminatory practices for having negative, stereotypical properties because of being an N' ' (2010, p. 174, 180, my emphasis). Finally, Whiting (2013) writes that ''slurs express the same semantic content when used as their neutral counterparts; that is, slurs and their neutral counterparts contribute the same thing to what is said by uses of sentences involving them'' (p. 364, my emphasis). Clearly a perusal of the extant literature on slurs shows that the assumption that slurs and descriptors are coreferential expressions with precisely the same extension is widespread.…”

Section: The Traditional Assumption That Slurs and Descriptors Are Comentioning

confidence: 97%

The semantics of slurs: A refutation of coreferentialism

Croom

2015

Ampersand

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

h i g h l i g h t s• Reviews the coreferentialist assumption that slurs and descriptors are coreferential expressions with the same extension.• Considers four sources of empirical evidence showing that slurs and descriptors are not coreferential expressions with the same extension.• Argues that since slurs and descriptors differ in their extension they thereby differ in their meaning or content also. • Introduces the notion of a conceptual anchor in order to adequately account for the relationship between slurs and descriptors.• Outlines a family resemblance account of slurs and explains its merits over competing proposals. a b s t r a c tCoreferentialism refers to the common assumption in the literature that slurs (e.g. faggot) and descriptors (e.g. male homosexual) are coreferential expressions with precisely the same extension. For instance, Vallee (2014) recently writes that ''If S is an ethnic slur in language L, then there is a non-derogatory expression G in L such that G and S have the same extension'' (p. 79). The non-derogatory expression G is commonly considered the nonpejorative correlate (NPC) of the slur expression S (Hom, 2008) and it is widely thought that every S has a coreferring G that possesses precisely the same extension. Yet here I argue against this widespread assumption by first briefly introducing what slurs are and then considering four sources of supporting evidence showing that slurs and descriptors are in fact not coreferential expressions with precisely the same extension. I argue that since slurs and descriptors differ in their extension they thereby differ in their meaning or content also. This article additionally introduces the notion of a conceptual anchor in order to adequately account for the relationship between slurs and descriptors actually evidenced in the empirical data, and further considers the inadequacy of common dictionary definitions of slurs. This article therefore contributes to the literature on slurs by demonstrating that previous accounts operating on the assumption that slurs and descriptors are coreferential expressions with the same extension, and that they thereby have the same meaning or content, are inconsistent with empirical data and that an alternative account in accord with Croom (2011Croom ( , 2013aCroom ( , 2014b better fits the facts concerning their actual meaning and use.

show abstract

Section: The Traditional Assumption That Slurs and Descriptors Are Comentioning

confidence: 97%

The semantics of slurs: A refutation of coreferentialism

Croom

2015

Ampersand

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Se afirmo essa frase, então, também afirmo a frase "Paulo é inteligente", pois a verdade de "Paulo é inteligente e Canadá é frio" depende da verdade de "Paulo é inteligente". Caso a frase seja outra, por exemplo, "Se Paulo é inteligente, então Joana também é inteligente", e eu afirmá-la, disso não se segue que afirmo "Paulo é inteligente", pois a verdade 16 POTTS 2007;HOM 2008HOM , 2010HOM e 2012WILLIAMSON 2009;McCREADY 2010;CROOM 2011CROOM e 2013ANDERSON & LEPORE 2013;HAY 2013;WHITING 2013. 17 HEDGER 2012 Via de regra, as críticas dirigidas às abordagens semânticas miram teorias baseadas nesse modelo semântico, que eu chamo de modelo de inspiração freguiana.…”

Section: O Expressivismo Puro Para Injúriasunclassified

“…7 WHITING 2007e 2013BOISVERT 2008;SCHRODER 2009;McCREADY 2010;CROOM 2014CROOM e 2014GUTZMANN 2011;HAY 2011. 8 Em seus trabalhos de 2003;2005;2007e 2012. 9 2014p.230.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Por Que O Expressivismo Puro Não Funciona Para Injúrias?

Corrêa

2018

Dissertatio

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Resumo: O expressivismo puro divide as expressões entre as que possuem apenas conteúdo descritivo e as que possuem apenas conteúdo expressivo. As primeiras, mas não as segundas, são aptas à verdade e à falsidade. Hedger aplica esta distinção às injúrias e, como resultado, elas são consideradas termos com conteúdo puramente expressivo. O seu argumento geral baseia-se no teste de projeção de comportamento de injúrias e em quatro evidências. Nesse sentido, se é verdade que injúrias raciais não são expressões com conteúdo puramente descritivo, então, elas são expressões com conteúdo puramente expressivo. É verdade que injúrias raciais não são expressões com conteúdo puramente descritivo. Portanto, elas são expressões com conteúdo puramente expressivo. Neste artigo, apresento um contraexemplo à tese expressivista pura. Desse modo, argumento que não é o caso que injúrias são semanticamente diferentes de termos descritivos, pois elas são analisáveis semanticamente. Palavras-chave: pejorativos, expressivismo, injúria racial, injúria sexual, semântica.Abstrtact: Pure expressivism divides expressions between those that have only descriptive content and those that have only expressive content. The former, but not the latter, are apt to truth and falsehood. Hedger applies this distinction to slurs, and as result, they are considered terms with purely expressive content. His general argument is based in the projection behaviors of slurs and four evidences. In this sense, if it is true that racial slurs are not purely descriptive expressions, then they are expressions with purely expressive content. It is true that racial slurs are not purely descriptive expressions. Therefore, they are expressions with purely expressive content. In this paper, I present a counterexample to the pure expressivist thesis. Thus, I argue it is not the case that slurs are semantically different from descriptive terms, since they are semantically analyzable. Keywords: pejoratives, expressivism, racial slur, sexual slur, semantics. IntroduçãoTradicionalmente, o expressivismo foi concebido como um tipo de não cognitivismo acerca da linguagem moral 2 . Para o não cognitivismo, frases morais são peculiares, pois não são verdadeiras nem falsas, uma vez que não descrevem o mundo tal como o fazem as frases descritivas. Desse modo, o não cognitivismo sustenta a tese inversa do cognitivismo. O emotivismo de Ayer (1936) e Stevenson (1963) e o prescritivismo de Hare (1952) são concepções não cognitivistas da linguagem moral. O expressivismo atual, no entanto, é um pouco diferente, pois ele não diz respeito à linguagem moral,

show abstract

“…This has left the case of slurs that typically target Mexican Americans largely neglected (cf. Hom, 2008;Potts, et al 2009;Hom, 2010;McCready, 2010;Hom, 2012;Hedger, 2013;Hom & May, 2013;Whiting, 2013). Since no account of slurs that typically target Mexican-Americans has so far been proposed, here I offer the first systematic and empirically informed analysis of these that accounts for both their derogatory and appropriative use.…”

mentioning

confidence: 93%

Spanish slurs and stereotypes for Mexican-Americans in the USA: A context-sensitive account of derogation and appropriation

Croom

2014

Pragmática Sociocultural / Sociocultural Pragmatics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Slurs such as spic, slut, wetback, and whore are linguistic expressions that are primarily understood to derogate certain group members on the basis of their descriptive attributes (such as their race or sex) and expressions of this kind have been considered to pack some of the nastiest punches natural language affords. Although prior scholarship on slurs has uncovered several important facts concerning their meaning and use -including that slurs are potentially offensive, are felicitously applied towards some targets yet not others, and are often flexibly used not only derogatorily to convey offense towards out-group members but also non-derogatorily to convey affiliation with ingroup members-the literature remains largely focused on slurs that typically target African Americans (nigger), male homosexuals (faggot), and sexually active females (slut). Since no account of slurs that typically target Hispanics or Mexican-Americans has so far been proposed, here I offer the first systematic and empirically informed analysis of these that accounts for both their derogatory and appropriative use. Importantly, this article reviews over a dozen Spanish stereotypes and slurs and explains how the descriptive attributes involved in a stereotype associated with a slur can contribute to the predication of certain content in the application of that slur toward its target in context. This article further explains how the psychological effects of stereotype threat and stereotype lift can be initiated through the application of a relevant slur towards its target in context as well. Resumen: Las expresiones peyorativas tales como spic ('spic'), slut ('zorra'), wetback ('espalda mojada') y whore ('puta') son expresiones lingüísticas que se entienden principalmente para minusvalorar ciertos miembros de un grupo sobre la base de sus atributos descriptivos (como la raza o el sexo). Se ha considerado que las expresiones de este tipo conllevan algunos de los puñe-tazos más desagradables que el lenguaje natural puede proporcionar. Aunque la literatura especializada sobre expresiones peyorativas ha descubierto varios hechos importantes en cuanto a significado y uso -entre los que se incluyen que tales expresiones son potencialmente ofensivas, apuntan efectivamente hacia unos objetivos pero no hacia otros, y con frecuencia se utilizan con flexibilidad no sólo despectivamente para ofender a miembros por fuera de un grupo, sino que también de forma no despectiva para afiliar con miembros dentro de un mismo grupo-, tal literatura sigue centrada en gran medida en las expresiones peyorativas que típicamente apuntan contra los afroamericanos (nigger 'negro'), los homosexuales varones (fagot 'maricón'), y las mujeres sexualmente activas (slut 'zorra'). En tanto que no se ha propuesto al momento dar cuenta de expresiones peyorativas dirigidas contra hispanos o mexicano-americanos, en este trabajo se ofrece el primer análisis sistemáti-co y empíricamente informado de tales expresiones, tanto en sus usos despectivos y de apropiación. Es ...

show abstract

It's Not What You Said, It's the Way You Said It: Slurs and Conventional Implicatures

Cited by 76 publications

References 22 publications

The semantics of slurs: A refutation of coreferentialism

The semantics of slurs: A refutation of coreferentialism

Por Que O Expressivismo Puro Não Funciona Para Injúrias?

Spanish slurs and stereotypes for Mexican-Americans in the USA: A context-sensitive account of derogation and appropriation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About