Open AccessLinguisticsMathematics

Daniel Whiting

2013.9.1Analytic Philosophy

DOI: 10.1111/phib.12024

tlooto Summary

This 2013 paper defends an account of slurs by criticizing competing theories and arguing that slurs conventionally imply a negative attitude.

Abstract

In this paper, I defend against a number of criticisms an account of slurs, according to which the same semantic content is expressed in the use of a slur (e.g. 'chink') as is expressed in the use of its neutral counterpart (e.g. 'Chinese'), while in addition the use of a slur conventionally implicates a negative, derogatory attitude. Along the way, I criticise competing accounts of the semantics and pragmatics of slurs, namely, Hom's 'combinatorial externalism' and Anderson and Lepore's 'prohibitionism'.

Citation format

WHITING, Daniel. It's not what you said, it's the way you said it: Slurs and conventional implicatures. Analytic Philosophy, 2013, 54: 364–377.