Slurs and register

A case study in meaning pluralism

Bibliographic Data

ID5833732
AuthorsJustina Díaz Legaspe (0000-0002-3245-3245, Western University), Justina Diaz‐Legaspe (Department of Philosophy The University of Western Ontario London Ontario Canada), Chang Liu (0000-0002-1198-6990, Department of Philosophy The University of Western Ontario London Ontario Canada), Robert J Stainton (0000-0001-6661-8266, Department of Philosophy The University of Western Ontario London Ontario Canada, corresponding author)
Year2019
Volume35
Issue2
Pages156-182
Publication date2019-05-17
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueMind & Language (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0268-1064 • E-ISSN: 1468-0017
PublisherWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1111/mila.12236
OpenAlexW2888179864
LanguageEN
Citations received17
References cited39

Most theories of slurs fall into two families: Those which understand slurring terms to involve special descriptive/informational content (however conveyed), and those which understand them to encode special emotive/expressive content. Both offer essential insights, but part of what sets slurs apart is use-theoretic content. Slurring words belong at the intersection of categories in a sociolinguistic register taxonomy, one that usually includes [+slang, +vulgar] and always includes [-polite, +derogatory]. What distinguishes "Chinese" from "chink," for example, is neither a peculiar sort of descriptive nor emotional content, but the fact that "chink" is lexically marked as belonging to different registers. Moreover, such facts contribute to slurring being ethically unacceptable

Content (measure theory · Emotive · Negation · Discourse Analysis in Language Studies · Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies · Swearing, Euphemism, Multilingualism