Moral and Semantic Innocence

Hom, Christopher; May, Robert

doi:10.1111/phib.12020

Cited by 82 publications

(72 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…. ] weren't niggers but just black '', MacDonald (1999) explains, because ''They'd live there for years and everyone said they were okay'', whereas in contrast with the comparatively neutral descriptive expression black, the more affectively forceful slur expression nigger was understood to be especially reserved as ''always something you called someone who could be considered anything less than you'' (p. 61, my emphasis; for discussion on the use of slurs for social distancing see also Croom, 2011;Croom, 2013a;Camp, 2013). So similarly to the case of sex-oriented slurs like faggot that Szekely (2008) discussed in ''Offensive Words'', it is evident in this case that race-oriented slurs like nigger are also used (if at all) to apply to some African Americans -namely, just those with attributes that the speaker does not consider acceptable or equal but rather as unacceptable or unequal -but not necessarily to them all.…”

Section: Reconsidering the Case That Slurs And Descriptors Are Corefementioning

confidence: 95%

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: Reconsidering the Case That Slurs And Descriptors Are Corefementioning

confidence: 95%

The semantics of slurs: A refutation of coreferentialism

Croom

2015

Ampersand

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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: 94%

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

“…Although NC is prima facie plausible as a thesis about single‐word noun‐phrases, such as ‘chink’, ‘nigger’, and ‘dago’, it does not extend to ‘slanty‐eyed’, ‘curry muncher’, ‘Jewish American Princess’, and ‘camel jockey’, nor does it extend to ‘ching chong’, which does not encode any truth‐conditional content whatsoever, and instead denigrates its target by virtue of its iconicity—or so I shall argue. When used as a transitive verb ‘slur’ refers to the act of denigrating individuals qua members of a certain group, and when used as a noun ‘slur’ refers to symbolic vehicles that speakers use in performing such acts (Anderson and Lepore , p. 351; Hom and May , p. 294) . Seemingly, one needn't use a conventional slurring word to slur a target.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do Racists Speak Truly? On the Truth-Conditional Content of Slurs

DiFranco

2015

Thought: A Journal of Philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Slurs denigrate individuals qua members of certain groups, such as race or sexual orientation. Most theorists hold that each slur has a neutral counterpart, i.e., a term that references the slur's target group without denigrating them. According to a widely accepted view, which I call ‘Neutral Counterpart Theory’, the truth‐conditional content of a slur is identical to the truth‐conditional content of its neutral counterpart (so, e.g., ‘Jew’ and ‘kike’ are truth‐conditionally the same, yet the latter is an objectionable or derogatory way of referring to a person's ethnic background). My aim is to challenge this view. I argue that the view fails with respect to slurs that encode truth‐conditional content which does more than merely classify someone as a member of the target group (such as ‘slanty‐eyed’, ‘curry muncher’, ‘camel jockey’, and ‘Jewish American Princess’), as well as slurs that denigrate by virtue of their iconicity (‘ching chong’).

show abstract

Moral and Semantic Innocence

Cited by 82 publications

References 17 publications

The semantics of slurs: A refutation of coreferentialism

The semantics of slurs: A refutation of coreferentialism

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

Do Racists Speak Truly? On the Truth-Conditional Content of Slurs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About